Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aberystwyth Rural District Council Bill,

Hastings Corporation General Powers Bill,

Richmond (Surrey) Corporation Bill,

Torquay Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Edinburgh Royal Maternity and Simpson Memorial Hospital Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Rothesay Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

GOVERNORS, SPECIAL POWERS.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1)

what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the proposal that, in view of the desirability that the new Act should be operated under the most favourable conditions, the Viceroy should take the initiative in arranging a conference with Mr. Gandhi, or other Congress representatives;
(2) what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to Mr. Gandhi's proposal that they should appoint an arbitral tribunal of three judges, of whom one will be chosen by Congress and one by His Majesty's Government, with power to the two to appoint a third to decide whether provincial governors are competent to give the assurance as regards their special responsibility as desired by the Congress party?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): The proposal for an arbitral tribunal has been considered by His Majesty's Government. They are unable to accept the suggestion that it is for such a tribunal to decide whether a Governor can or cannot, consistently with the Act and his Instructions, divest himself of duties imposed upon him in terms by Parliament through those documents. If, on the other hand, the Congress Resolution was not intended to necessitate their so doing, the only authority in a position to establish this fact is the author of the Resolution himself. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards a conference has already been indicated. I observe from a recent statement made as to the intention of the Congress Resolution that the main apprehension appears to be lest the Governors should use their


special powers for detailed interference in the administration. Let me make, it plain that His Majesty's Government have no intention of countenancing a use of the special powers for other than the purposes for which Parliament intended them. It is certainly not the intention that Governors, by narrow or legalistic interpretation of their own responsibilities, should trench upon the wide powers which it was the purpose of Parliament to place; in: the hands of Ministries and which it is our desire that they should use, in furtherance of the programmes which they have advocated.

Mr. Williams: As there seems to be a feeling much more of misunderstanding than of legal practice, would it not be in the interests of the people of India and of good government if such misunderstandings could be removed on the Spot, and in the circumstances does not the hon. Gentleman think that an atom of that spirit of compromise which predominates in this country might also be exercised in India?

Duchess of Atholl: Will my hon. Friend not make it clear that there is some misunderstanding on Gandhi's own part, on his own admission, because he has not read the Government of India Act?

Mr. Butler: I think the latter statement is perfectly true. As regards the coming together in India, I have already indicated the general opinion of the Government that if Mr. Gandhi or any other leader makes a request to approach the Viceroy, the Viceroy would give it consideration.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Would the hon. Gentleman not go a little beyond that? We all know the value of approach, and does he not think that in this case an opportunity for approach might be taken, apart from formalities, which would very much ease the situation?

Mr. Butler: I have already indicated the attitude of the Government.

Mr. Graham White: Is it not the case that after Gandhi's latest pronouncement on this subject there is very little difference between him and the Government?

Mr. Butler: As I said in my original answer, only the authority of the author

of the Resolution himself can the fact.

TERRITORIAL AND AUXILIARY FORCES.

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will give information showing the strength of the Indian territorial and auxiliary forces, respectively, for which provision was made in the estimates for the last 12 months of which he has figures; and the amount of expenditure in each case?

Mr. Butler: The strength of the Indian Territorial Force on 1st April, 1937, was approximately 16,000 officers and men, and that of the Auxiliary Force, India, including reservists, about 21,000 of all ranks. The expenditure on these forces provided in the Indian budget estimates for 1937–38, excluding the pay and allowances of the superior staff responsible for their training and supervision, is RS.21,20,000 for the Indian Territorial Force and Rs.36,48,000 for the Auxiliary Force, India.

Mr. Day: Have these estimates been substantially exceeded?

Mr. Butler: Not that I am aware of.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the officers killed in the recent fighting between Jandola and Sarwekai had driven on beyond the protection of the convoy and its picquets; and, if so, who was responsible; and whether orders will be issued that no one be permitted to travel between posts without adequate escort?

Mr. Butler: I have not yet received official information on the point raised by the hon. Member, but I have every reason to believe that all vehicles were moving within the convoy under the protection of the armoured cars. As regards the last part of the question, this order is already in force.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in punitive operations in Waziristan, he will suggest the advisability of using primarily troops of the Frontier Force and Gurkhas, who understand the terrain and the tactics of the tribesmen?

Mr. Butler: Units with frontier experience are already being used as part of


a larger force containing all classes of arms necessary in the conditions now prevailing.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Under-Secre-tary of State for India what steps are being taken to punish the tribesmen guilty of the attack on British troops in the Shahur Tangi?

Mr. Butler: The jirga of the tribal section to which the tribesmen principally concerned belong were ordered to hand over two of the leaders in the attack, failing which the section must return to specified encampments from its summer grazing grounds and hand over 30 hostages. Failure to comply with these orders will result in more drastic action being taken.

Sir A. Knox: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that delay in taking effective action against these people is really encouraging further disorder?

Mr. Butler: I realise also that it is very important that the particular tribes in question should be dealt with in the interim:

ARMY (OFFICER ESTABLISHMENT).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that many British officers of the Indian Army are receiving notice that they are likely to be surplus to the establishment in a few years, their places are being filled by Indians; and how large a reduction of British officers in the Indian Army is proposed?

Mr. Butler: I think my hon. and gallant Friend must be referring to the measures which were introduced in 1934 to relieve the congestion in the middle ranks of the Indian Army and which are still in operation. Full details were published on 17th October, 1934. The object is not to reduce the total officer establishment, but to readjust the proportions in the middle ranks. No scheme for reduction of the establishment is in contemplation. The measures I have mentioned are wholly independent of the process of Indianisation; and none of the officers concerned are being replaced by Indian Officers.

Brigadier-General Brown: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that many of these officers are leaving

with excellent characters, and also that in our Defence plan it is necessary to have men experienced in organisation, would he not consider finding employment for them when our new plans are being started?

Mr. Butler: That raises a separate question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO TREATY.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of -State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to press for an amendment of the Locarno Treaty by the original participating Powers so as to secure an all-round guarantee of assistance against invasion or aggressive attack?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): The conclusion of a Treaty to replace the Treaty of Locarno is still the subject of confidential discussion between the Governments concerned, and I am not therefore in a position to make a statement on the matter at the present time.

Mr. Leach: Will my point with regard to mutual protection of one another's territory come under discussion?

Viscount Cranborne: I would rather not add to that statement at the present time, but I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of civilians exterminated on political and religious grounds in Malaga during the occupation of that town by the forces of the Madrid Government since the outbreak of civil war in Spain?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir.

Sir H. Croft: Has the Noble Lord had no information from the British Consul there, either at the time or since, and is he not aware that British citizens and people of British origin in Malaga have estimated the number as between 8,000 and 10,000?

Viscount Cranborne: As I have already explained in the House on various occasions, it is not possible for the Acting Consul to give anything in the nature of


an accurate account to the House, and we would not wish to give any figures which are not accurate.

Miss Rathbone: If our Vice-Consuls are able to give any information will the Noble Lord ask them to extend it to some estimate of the number of civilian non-combatants who were exterminated by the rebels at and since their entry into the town?

Sir H. Croft: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the independent Basque Republic has declared its independence from the Government of Spain which existed at the outbreak of civil war; and whether the Basque Government is therefore in the same diplomatic position as the Government of General Franco as having severed its connection with the erstwhile Government of Spain?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir. By a decree dated 29th September, 1936, the Spanish Government constituted the Basque Provinces of Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Vizcaya an autonomous region within the Spanish State.

Sir H. Croft: In order that misapprehension may be cleared away, supposing the position was reversed and General Franco lost command of the seas—

Mr. Speaker: That begins to be hypothetical.

Sir H. Croft: Would the same facilities be given to General Franco if he were in the same position?

Viscount Cranborne: His Majesty's Government have said that there is to be no interference with British shipping on the high seas, and that applies all round.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in connection with the strength of the rival navies in Spain and whether he can say what dockyards are under the control of the rival forces?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Stanley): I have been asked to reply. As the answer includes a number of names and figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to the information available to the Admiralty, the position is as shown below:—


Government.
Insurgents.


Battleships.


Jaime I.
Espana.


Cruisers.


Libertad.
Canarias.


Mendez Nunez.
Baleares.


Cervantes.
Cervera.



Republica (non-effective).


Destroyers.


Sixteen (3 non- One. effective).



Torpedo Boats.


Seven.
Five.


Gunboats.


One.
Five.


Submarines.


Eight.
Number unknown.


Minelayers.


Nil.
Three.


Armed Trawlers and Armed Merchant Cruisers.


Some on each side.


Naval Dockyards.


Cartagena.
Cadiz.


Port Mahon.
Ferrol.



Vigo.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in securing an agreement for the withdrawal of the external personnel which at present sustains the loyalist and rebel factions in Spain?

Viscount Cranborne: I would refer my hon. Friend to the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the 45th meeting of the Chairman's sub-committee of the Non-Intervention Committee on 15th April, in which it was announced that a technical sub-committee had been appointed to prepare a scheme for the withdrawal of non-Spanish combatants from Spain. I understand that this subcommittee held its first meeting at the Foreign Office this morning.

Mr. Adams: Is my Noble Friend aware that the German Press has recently presumed to describe the proper activities of the "Hood" as intervention?

Mr. Thurtle: Do the non-Spanish elements include Moors?

Viscount Cranborne: I should certainly require notice of that.

Mr. White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement with regard 10 the present position of the cargoes of the steamship "Fernando L. de Ybarra" and steamship "Mar Baltico"; and whether the representations he has made to General Franco include a claim for loss arising from transhipment and delay?

Viscount Cranborne: The answer to the first part of the question is no, Sir. As regards the second part, the insurgent authorities have been informed that His Majesty's Government reserve the right, if necessary, to claim damages.

Mr. White: Are the Government taking steps to claim in respect of damages which have already been incurred?

Viscount Cranborne: That would come into the claim. Such a claim might properly include loss arising from transhipment.

Miss Wilkinson: Have His Majesty's Government any hope whatever that these claims are likely to be met?

Viscount Cranborne: Yes, His Majesty's Government have that hope.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to protect British merchant ships on the high seas, he will arrange for a warship or warships to be within call of such ships on the normal route from British ports to Bilbao?

Lord Stanley: I have nothing to add to the very full statements which were made on behalf of His Majesty's Government during the Debate on the Adjournment on 20th April.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the noble Lord aware that it is not yet clear that the Government are maintaining warships within call of the ordinary trade route to Bilbao, and does he not think that if the British Navy were given the proper instructions they would do the job all right?

Lord Stanley: What is perfectly clear is that my right hon. Friend promised that, as far as possible, protection should be given to British ships on the high seas, and it is clear from the events of recent days that adequate protection is being given.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is the noble Lord aware that there is great satisfaction in the country that the National Government have at last withdrawn their effective blockade of Bilbao and that events have shown that there was no effective blockade by Franco's ships?

Sir A. Knox: Will the noble Lord see that British ships do not interfere with Spanish ships in territorial waters?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (for Mr. Denville): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause inquiry to be made why Captain G. H. L. F. Pitt-Rivers, late Royal Dragoons, was refused a special endorsement for permission to enter Spain via France on the grounds that he was not on a humanitarian mission, commercial business, or an accredited news reporter?

Viscount Cranborne: I am satisfied that there were not sufficient grounds in this case for making an exception to the regulations at present in force in regard to the issue of endorsements for Spain.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is my Noble Friend aware that Captain Pitt-Rivers is the accredited representative of the "Universe" newspaper, and is he satisfied that no different grounds are required for permission to enter territory held by General Franco, and extending over two-thirds of Spain, than are required in territory under Government control?

Viscount Cranborne: My information is that Captain Pitt-Rivers is not the accredited representative of a newspaper. That was the information at the time, and it was carefully gone into, and that was the conclusion which was reached.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I could furnish my Noble Friend with conclusive proof that the gentleman was accredited, would the decision be withdrawn?

Viscount Cranborne: The question would be reconsidered.

Mr. Emmott: In any case, have not persons been admitted into Spain, in order to report upon events, in spite of the fact that they were not accredited news reporters?

Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that some of these so-called humanitarian missions are merely cloaks for political propaganda?

Viscount Cranborne: There have been exceptions in some cases on humanitarian or commercial business or as accredited representatives of newspapers.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart (for Mr. David Adams): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the advice tendered to British vessels not to attempt to reach Bilbao is preventing shipowners from obtaining reasonable rates for war-risk insurance, thus holding up their Spanish trade; and will he review the present situation and take steps to end this deadlock?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman): I have been asked to reply. I understand that facilities for war-risk insurance in the case of vessels intended for Bilbao are limited, and that what business is being done is on a small scale. As regards the second part of the question, the position is, as the House has been informed, constantly under review by the Government.

Mr. A. Henderson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the fact that three British ships, the steamship "Macgregor," the steamship "Hamsterly," the steamship "Stanbrook," arrived at Bilbao on Friday and two British ships, the steamship "Thurston" and the steamship "Stesso" arrived at Bilbao on Sunday, and whether His Majesty's Government are still of the opinion that the Spanish insurgent authorities have established an effective blockade of the port of Bilbao?

Viscount Cranborne: I am aware of the arrival in Bilbao of the five ships to which the hon. Member refers. The experience of these ships does not, however, indicate that there is any change in the situation since the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 10th April, in which he explained that the Government's present information did not enable them to advise entering Bilbao and that as

regards other ports such as Santander and Gijon, there is a degree of risk which may vary from day to day.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not clear that, provided that British ships are protected up to the territorial limits, there is no difficulty in their entering the port of Bilbao?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would not many of the difficulties with which the Government are now confronted be resolved if belligerent rights were granted to both sides?

Mr. Thurtle: Is it still the opinion of the Government that the harbour of Bilbao is mined after the experience of these five vessels getting through?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that a blockade is not dependent merely on the question of mines?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOROCCAN COAST.

Mr. Alexander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement as a result of his inquiries as to the construction of fortifications by Germany at Benzou, Ceuta, and other strategic points on the coast of Morocco?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir.

Mr. Alexander: Are the inquiries proceeding?

Viscount Cranborne: Yes, Sir, they are.

Mr. Alexander: I will put down a question later.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in, a position to make a statement with reference to the expulsion of British missionaries from Addis Ababa?

Viscount Cranborne: Conversations are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make a further statement at present.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Noble Lord hope to be in a position in the near future to make a statement?

Viscount Cranborne: Yes, I hope to make a statement at an early date.

Mr. Ede (for Lieut.-Commander Fletcher): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement concerning the treatment by the Italian authorities of the firm of Mahomet Ali at Addis Ababa?

Viscount Cranborne: This matter has continued under discussion between His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome and the Italian Government, and between the British Consul-General and the Italian authorities at Addis Ababa. As a result of His Majesty's Government's representations, the Italian Government have undertaken to allow Messrs. Mahomet Ali freedom of action with regard to negotiations for the sale of their business in Abyssinia to Italian interests. They have also assured His Majesty's Government that a reasonable period will be allowed for the negotiations, no fixed time-limit being imposed; and they have stated that they have asked the firm for a list of persons who will be charged with the Liquidation of their interests in Abyssinia. The Italian Government have further informed Sir Eric Drummond that all possible facilities will be given for the export from Abyssinia of the proceeds of the liquidation. So far as the personnel of Messrs. Mahomet Ali's branches in Abyssinia are concerned, the time limit within which they were to leave the country has been extended until 31st May; and on 19th April all restrictions on the sale of the firm's goods were removed.

Mr. A. Henderson: Are the Government accepting the allegation that has been made by the Italian Government against this firm?

Viscount Cranborne: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects have died in captivity in China during the previous three years; and whether the British authorities in China continue to warn all British subjects before they proceed to or reside in districts where there is known or believed to be danger?

Viscount Cranborne: To the best of my knowledge, only one British subject has died in captivity in China during the last

three years, Mr. Gareth Jones. The British authorities in China continue to warn all British subjects who give them the opportunity of doing so before they proceed to districts where there is known or believed to be danger.

Mr. Day: Has the Noble Lord's Department any record of warnings which have been given to British subjects?

Viscount Cranborne: I should like notice of that question.

VEGETABLE OIL CORPORATION.

Mr. Moreing (for Mr. Chorlton): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the China Vegetable Oil Corporation; whether the controlling interest in the corporation is held by the Chinese Government; and whether it is the policy of the corporation to enter into competition with private traders in the marketing of wood oil?

Viscount Cranborne: Yes, Sir, I have keen kept informed by His Majesty's Ambassador in China on the subject. The controlling interest in the corporation appears in practice to be held by the Chinese Government. From such indications of the corporation's policy as can be discerned at present, it appears possible that it may undertake the marketing of wood oil as soon as it is in a position to build up the necessary organisation.

TRADE MARKS.

Mr. Moreing (for Mr. Chorlton): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has yet received the expected report from His Majesty's Ambassador in China on the present state of the Chinese law relating to the registration of trade marks; and whether the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in July, 1936, have produced any result;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Chinese authorities that the use by a Chinese firm of a trade mark of soap-class goods resembling the trade mark registered by a British firm for face cream is not an infringement of the trade mark law on the ground that the British importers had not actually used the trade mark for such; and whether he will draw the attention of the Chinese Government to the abuses likely to result from this interpretation of the law?

Viscount Cranborne: A full report from His Majesty's Ambassador on the whole question of the Chinese law relating to the registration of trade marks and covering the question of the imitation of British trade marks in China is expected to reach my right hon. Friend within the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for the proposed postponement of the forthcoming meeting of the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference?

Viscount Cranborne: I understand that the reasons for which the Vice-President of the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference has proposed that the meeting of the bureau should be postponed to a date to be fixed in connection with the forthcoming meetings of the Council and the Assembly are that it is desired to meet the convenience of those members of the bureau who would normally be present at the Council and the Assembly and to take into account the possibility that some members of the bureau might, at the original date proposed, still be engaged at the Montreux Conference.

Mr. Henderson: Has the date been fixed?

Viscount Cranborne: No, but I think it will be at the end of the month.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAUSANNE AGREEMENT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who signed the Lausanne Agreement in July, 1932; whether he can give the text of the Agreement; and whether any alteration has been made in the Agreement since 1932?

Viscount Cranborne: I would refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 4126 containing the Final Act of the Lausanne Conference and Command Paper 4129 containing the Further Documents relating to the Settlement reached at the Lausanne Conference in which the texts of the Agreement with Germany and of the other documents are given, and also the names of those who signed them at the Lausanne Conference in July, 1932. The answer to the last part of the question is, No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the proposals of the Rumanian Government to enact legislation discriminating against the employment of members of the minorities in Rumania to the extent of fixing a compulsory minimum of 75 per cent. of employés of so-called Rumanian ethnical origin; and whether the Secretary of State will make it clear that such a measure would contravene the Minorities treaty to which Great Britain is one of the signatories?

Viscount Cranborne: I understand that a Bill to this effect was discussed in the Rumanian Press for some time, but was not proceeded with by the Government, as it was pronounced illegal by the Legislative Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGGESTED WORLD CONFERENCE.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the widespread desire in this country for an improvement in international relations, he will invite the opinion of the President of the United States of America as to the holding of a world conference, or of commissions leading up to such a conference, to discuss the redress of grievances and the promotion of international economic organisation?

Viscount Cranborne: As was stated by the Prime Minister on 22nd April, in reply to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), His Majesty's Government consider that, before any steps were taken to summon a further World Conference, thorough and comprehensive investigation would be required in order to ascertain that there is a prospect of success. His Majesty's Government and the French Government have recently invited the Prime Minister of Belgium to undertake informal inquiries as to the possibility of securing a general relaxation of the obstacles to international trade. M. van Zeeland was good enough to accept this invitation, and His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the results of his investigations should be awaited before the question of summoning a World Conference is considered.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the prominence given to this subject by a Member of this House, are His Majesty's Government taking any initiative with regard to investigating this subject by way of preparatory commissions?

Viscount Cranborne: We had better wait and see what M. van Zeeland achieves first. It is no good proceeding on two conflicting lines at the same time.

Mr. A. Henderson: Are any other investigations taking place apart from that of M. van Zeeland, which I understand are restricted to trade matters?

Viscount Cranborne: This question is very largely restricted to trade matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what body determines whether a referendum is to be taken on the question of holding an election in the city of Danzig?

Viscount Cranborne: Article 9 of the Danzig Constitution states that the Popular Assembly may be dissolved before the end of its term of office (a) by its own decision, (b) by a referendum. It is not specifically stated in this article that the holding of a referendum is to be decided upon by the Popular Assembly, but it is definitely laid down that a referendum may also be held on the demand of the Senate. Any question arising out of the application of this article would be a matter for judicial interpretation.

Mr. Adams: Is there no external body by whom a referendum can be commanded?

Viscount Cranborne: These are the only circumstances in the constitution.

Mr. Adams: How can that be satisfactory, as the Nazi Government in Danzig are hardly likely to decree their own death?

Viscount Cranborne: It may not he entirely satisfactory, but that is the constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the

regulations of his Department cause unnecessary suffering to ex-Service men applying for entrance to Ministry of Pensions hospitals because of the delay between the initial application to the chief area officer and the final action following the medical report, during which time applicants cannot take local medical advice; and whether he will consider the amendment of these regulations?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Ministry's regulations are expressly designed to avoid delay in securing any necessary treatment. The local medical staff of the Ministry have instructions, in every case of suspected urgency, to obtain admission to hospital, if necessary, immediately on the man's application or following medical examination. In fact, about one-half of the applications are so dealt with. In other cases, many of which will not have been seen by the Ministry for several years, information may have to be obtained from the man's private doctor and other investigations made in order to determine the appropriate treatment to be given by the Ministry. In the bulk of these cases admission to hospital is secured in from seven to nine days, during which the patient remains free to seek the advice of his panel practitioner if he requires it. I am satisfied that the practice of the Ministry is generally as expeditious as it can be made, but if the hon. Member has any cases in mind in which undue delay appears to have occurred, I will gladly look into them.

Mr. Burke: Would the Minister give power to the man's own doctor to summon a local Department doctor without having to do it through the area officer?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am anxious to avoid possible delay. Perhaps the hon. Member will see me afterwards to discuss his suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FEEDING-STUFFS (PRICES).

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to give the farmer a sense of security as to the ultimate value of the finished bacon or pork pigs, he will consider taking action to check the gambling in wheat and other corn; and is he aware of the many cases of farmers who are prevented from the raising of pigs by the uncertainty in the prices of feeding-stuffs?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware that as a result of general world causes the prices of cereals have risen from the abnormally low levels of recent years and of the difficulties that inevitably follow from price fluctuations.

Mr. De la Bére: Is the Minister aware that the cost of standard feeding-stuffs for May has risen by 1½d., and is it not possible to do something to prevent the rise and to stabilise the price of feeding-stuffs throughout the country? Is it not time that something was done in this country to assist agriculture instead of merely talking about it?

Mr. Morrison: The Government have no control over the price of feeding-stuffs. It is entirely subject to world causes.

Mr. T. Williams: Has it not been the policy of the Government since 1932 to help agriculturists in the Dominions?

Captain Heilgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those producers who maintain a steady production throughout usually come out on top?

Sir Percy Harris: Would it not help to reduce the price of feeding-stuffs if duties and tariffs were swept away?

Mr. Morrison: The rise in price is not due to tariffs. In reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) the policy of the Government has been to help British agriculture.

Mr. George Griffiths: Tariffs do not increase the costs, do they?

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that over 1,30o persons engaged in the poultry industry have gone out of business during the past year, and the replacement stock of young poultry has shrunk by over 3o per cent.; and when he proposes to take steps to check the decline in this important food producing industry?

Captain Macnamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the continued anxiety in the poultry industry throughout the country; and whether he is yet in a position to announce a policy in this connection?

Captain Heilgers: asked the Prime Minister, whether his attention has been

drawn to the Notice of Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) which has been signed by 169 Members;, and whether he is now able to state when this request will be complied with?

[That, in view of the critical conditions which have developed in the poultry industry, compelling the wholesale closing-down of poultry businesses, this House urges the Government to announce their policy without further delay.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I was not aware of the figures mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), and perhaps he will be good enough to send me further particulars. In reply to the other questions I would refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bére) on r9th April.

Mr. Lambert: Would the Minister request the proper authorities to give some idea of the number of persons who have been thrown out of the poultry business in the past year and thus get an approximate average?

Mr. Bossom: Could my right hon. Friend inquire at the same time how many poultry businesses have gone bankrupt in the last six months?

Captain Heilgers: In view of the promise made to a deputation to the Prime Minister that full consideration in the making of new trade agreements would be given to the poultry industry, and of the fact that some time must elapse before the new trade agreements will be made, will my right hon. Friend be able to issue a reassuring statement at an early date as to what is meant by full consideration?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has made a statement in his question, and I shall be obliged if he will give me the evidence he has for it. I have given such information as I can gather from my staff officers, but I shall be glad to have the full information on which he bases his question. With regard to the other supplementary questions, as I have said before, I am not in a position to make a statement, and I cannot promise to make one before the Adjournment, but as soon as I can I will make a statement.

Mr. Lambert: My figures are based on information given to me by the Scientific Poultry Breeders' Association.

Mr. Morrison: I hope that my right hon. Friend will send me the figures so that I may have them critically examined.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that he has not yet fixed the date on which the poultry farmers of the country will get their snouts into the national trough?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE TIME SIGNAL.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the number of calls as registered on the time clock, to the last convenient date, since the installation of the automatic signal T I M; and when it is proposed to introduce a similar service in the provincial telephone exchanges?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The speaking clock service was introduced in London on 24th July last; and the number of calls made to the clock up to 17th April was 9,226,320. Arrangements are in hand for the extension of this service to other large centres. The matter is being proceeded with as quickly as possible; but the extension involves the manufacture of special equipment and the provision of additional line plant; and no date can yet be given for the introduction of the extended service.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say what is the cost of the clock and the installation?

Major Tryon: That should be the subject of another question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put one down.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DOCKYARD DISMISSALS.

Mr. Paling: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the method of collecting evidence used in the case of the five men recently dismissed from the dockyards is still in operation as regards future possible offenders?

Lord Stanley: The Admiralty are bound to use every effort to obtain timely information concerning any attempt to imperil the safety of His Majesty's ships or Naval establishments or to subvert the loyalty of personnel, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose the methods which may have to be adopted for this purpose.

Mr. Paling: Is the Minister aware that when this matter was discussed in the House a good deal of misgiving was manifest among Members at the methods adopted, and is it not time that this way of getting information, by means of spies, was abolished?

Lord Stanley: Investigations of this nature are cut down to the very minimum, but it is absolutely essential that we should be in a position to prevent action of the nature which I have indicated.

Mr. Paling: But is it not possible to achieve that end in other ways than by the disgusting way which was disclosed in the Debate?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is there any difference between the methods employed in this case and the methods adopted in civil cases?

Mr. Kelly: Is the Minister aware that there is great disquiet among the men in the yards at the methods adopted and the type of persons engaged to undertake this task, who have to justify themselves on the job they have been given?

Lord Stanley: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been directed to the high percentage of claims disallowed by courts of referees; and will he consider taking administrative action in order to bring about a more sympathetic and uniform administration?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have no ground for thinking that the percentage is higher than would be expected or that the work is lacking either in sympathy or in uniformity. It should be noted that the vast majority of claims for unemployment benefits are allowed by the insurance officers without reference to the courts of referees, and that it is only cases in which doubts arise that are referred to the courts. As indicating the manner in which the courts perform their work, I may mention that of the cases disallowed by the courts less than 1 per cent. were subsequently reversed by the umpire on appeal. I regard the manner in which the court


perform their duties as satisfactory, and I do not therefore propose to take any action.

Mr. Batey: Is the number or the percentage of cases disallowed increasing or decreasing?

Mr. Brown: The total number of claims in the 51 weeks ending 31st December, 1936, was 9,430,000 of which 448,958 came before the courts of referees and 337,062 were disallowed.

Mr. E. Smith: Of the cases referred to the courts of referees is it not a fact that 7o per cent. are disallowed and is not that a rather high percentage?

Mr. Brown: No, and it is a comment on the efficiency with which the insurance officers do their work in the 9,000,000 cases.

Mr. Goldie: Can the Minister say how many cases came before the umpires?

Mr. Brown: I have not the figure here.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the written evidence of the employers taken in these cases, although the appellant appears in person? Can the Minister not force the employer to give evidence in person?

Mr. Brown: That is another issue.

Mr. Batey: Does not the Minister think that if over 300,000 cases are rejected out of 400,000 it is a high percentage?

Mr. Brown: No, not in the circumstances.

NEW MUNITIONS FACTORY, CHORLEY (IRISH LABOURERS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make a statement on the importation of Irish labour for excavation work on the site of the munition factory at Euxton, Chorley, Lancashire, to the detriment of the unemployed in surrounding distressed areas?

Mr. E. Brown: My inquiries into this matter are not yet complete, but according to the information which is at present available, the total number of men employed at 14th April by the contractor was 868, of whom 360 had been placed through the Employment Exchange, while a further 190 local men had been engaged direct on the site. The remainder include the permanent staff, a large number of

men transferred by the contractor from other contracts, old employees who had written to the firm and been engaged direct, and men of the navvy type who had come from all parts of the country. The latter included 150 to 200 Irishmen, of whom about 70 had come direct from Ireland on their own initiative, the others being men who had been resident in this country for some time. I should point out that in accordance with the practice adopted in the case of all important Government contracts, the contractor was informed by the Office of Works that it was desired they should make use of the Employment Exchanges for the engagement of their labour, and should encourage their sub-contractors to do so also. The Employment Exchanges are taking every practicable step to secure employment on these works for suitably qualified men in the locality, and as necessary, in other districts, and consultations are at present taking place between representatives of the contractor, the Office of Works and the Ministry of Labour in order to secure that greater consideration is given to the claims of suitable applicants from areas of heavy unemployment that are adjacent to Chorley.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister know that where unemployment is heaviest is only about eight miles from these munition works; and does he know, also, that men have walked from Chorley to try to find employment, only to learn that Irishmen are engaged on jobs which they could do?

Mr. Brown: There is no difference between the hon. Member and myself on this issue, and I am trying all the steps I can to secure the end which he and I have in view.

Sir William Davison: Will the Minister consult with his colleague the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs regarding the thousands of Irish labourers coming over to this country and taking jobs?

Mr. Davies: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

JUVENILE TRANSFERENCE.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department proposes to transfer juveniles from South Wales for employment in Lancashire textile mills?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. Requests have been received from employers in the cotton industry for assistance in obtaining the transfer of juveniles. Each such request is carefully considered, but so far my Department has not regarded transfers as suitable under the Juvenile Transference Scheme, and the facilities of the scheme have not been granted.

Mr. Davies: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that employers are transferring these young people of their own accord and without reference to the Ministry?

Mr. Brown: I have heard of one case where some boys were transferred by direct arrangement between the employers and local people in the Rhondda Valley.

ACCIDENT (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Sydney Winckle, of 12, Queen Street, Stratford, No. 150,898, was sent by the Stratford Employment Exchange for employment at an engineering firm in London and, whilst he was being conducted through the works by an official escort of the firm, he sustained an injury by a piece of metal flying from a machine; and whether any compensation will be offered to this man?

Mr. E. Brown: I understand that Mr. Winckle unfortunately met with an accident. I am making further inquiries in the matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Groves: Seeing that an applicant at the exchange when he receives the green card authorising him to go to a special job is thereby restricted in his movements, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of granting legal advice to this man, as the firm denies responsibility in the matter?

Mr. Brown: We are in close touch about this matter, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as my inquiries are completed.

ASSISTANCE (MINERS).

Sir Charles Edwards (for Mr. A. Jenkins): asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Coalowners' Association of South Wales and Monmouthshire and the South Wales Miners' Federation not to proceed with a voluntary pension

scheme for aged miners owing to the refusal of the Unemployment. Assistance Board to disregard the pension as income to the home; and whether he will introduce the necessary legislation to exempt the income from such voluntary pensions from the calculation as income to the home by the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. E. Brown: I have been asked to reply. With regard to the first part of the question, I am not aware that such a decision has been reached. As to the second part of the question, the matter was discussed by representatives of the employers and workers with a representative of the Unemployment Assistance Board, when it was stated that, as persons of 65 years and over could not apply for allowances from the board, no question arose of the board reducing allowances payable to such men when they received the pension. The board further made it clear that these pensions would be regarded as entirely for the personal requirements of the pensioners, and would not be brought into account against the needs of an applicant in a household in which there was a miner in receipt of the pension.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Do I understand that this is not taken into account if there is a son in the house? It is taken into account at other times.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member had better look at the answer at leisure. He will see that it contains a precise statement of the law and of the practice of the board under the law. He may be thinking of public assistance, where, of course, the issues are very different.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that this is not a question of public assistance, but of Unemployment Assistance Board scales, where thousands of people are having their amounts decreased because there is someone in the home who has a pension?

Mr. E. J. Williams: Did the Miners' Federation receive an intimation of the reply which the Minister is now making?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. The workers and employers came together and met at the Ministry of Labour, with a representative of the Unemployment Assistance Board. I myself was in the chair at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETAIL FOOD PRICES.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take, in view of the Ministry's index number for retail food prices having risen by 18 per cent. since 1932 and by 8 per cent. during the last 14 months, and seeing that prices are now 151 per cent. over 1914 prices?

Mr. E. Brown: I do not know what steps the hon. Member has in mind, but I would point out that the cost of living figure is 51—not 151—per cent. above that for 1914.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to state the terms of reference and the personnel of the tribunal to inquire into the fees paid to panel doctors under the National Health Insurance scheme?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No, Sir. The arrangements for the inquiry are not quite complete, but I will inform the hon. Member as soon as they are settled.

Mr. Davies: Can the Minister give me an approximate date?

Mr. Hudson: I will let the hon. Member know.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAILOR'S HALL, EDINBURGH.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now make any further statement about the preservation of the building of Tailor's Hall, in Edinburgh?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I am informed that the corporation have at present under consideration a suggestion for the construction of an arcade which would enable the carriageway to be widened and the buildings to be preserved.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (SERVICE ABROAD).

Lord Eustace Percy: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to introduce legislation in the present Session to amend the Teachers'

Superannuation Act in respect of service abroad; and whether periods of foreign service recognised as contributory service under such legislation will be recognised also for purposes of salary increments under the Burnham agreements?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to introduce a Bill to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Acts in order to provide for periods of service abroad up to five years, or such longer periods as the board may in special circumstances direct, being treated as pensionable service. The recognition of such periods for purposes of salary increments is of course a matter for the Burnham Committees, which no doubt will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOYAL LANCASHIRE REGIMENT.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers of the 1st battalion the Loyal Lancashire Regiment, on being granted leave to proceed to their homes on their recent return to England after service in India and Palestine, were not granted free travelling warrants; and, since most of this Regiment live in the North and travelling expenses from the depot at Tidworth were exceedingly heavy; whether he can state the reason why the men were not taken to a depot nearer their homes or, alternatively, given travelling warrants?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Under existing regulations free travelling warrants are not authorised for military personnel proceeding on leave, and I am advised that the cost of making such a concession would be prohibitive. With regard to the second part of the question, personnel returning home with their unit from a tour of foreign service do not proceed individually to the regimental depot but accompany the unit to its new station, which in the case of The Loyal Regiment was Tidworth. There are no stations for regular battalions in Lancashire.

Mr. Goldie: Since when was the depot of the Loyal Lancashire Regiment moved from Preston to Tidworth?

Sir V. Warrender: I did not say it was removed from Lancashire.

Mr. Mabane: Can the Minister say the actual cost? Is it considered prohibitive?

Sir V. Warrender: I have not been able to get the actual figure, and should therefore not like to mention any.

Mr. Robinson: Would it not make the task of recruiting very much easier if the interests of the serving soldier were considered?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the need of taking action to increase old age and widows' pensions by 2S. a week in order to meet the 18 per cent. rise in prices of retail food since 1932?

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the increased cost of living, he will arrange for a corresponding adjustment of old age pensions?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 18th March to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).

Mr. E. Smith: In view of the continued increase in the cost of living and of the position of these poor people, would the Minister be prepared to reconsider the whole position?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I recognise the feeling in the lion. Member's mind, but I would remind him, as his question is based upon the cost of living, that the cost of living at the date when these pensions were first made was very much higher than it is now.

Mr. Tinker: In view of the present prosperity, could not the Minister give these old people a share of it?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I will give the figures. In 1919, when the pension was fixed at 10s. per week, the cost-of-living figure was 125. That was the increase over July, 1914. To-day it is 51.

Mr. E. Smith: Does the Minister consider, as an individual, that that is a fair argument to put to the House?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: It is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ESTATE AND SUCCESSION DUTIES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount paid in Estate and Succession Duties, giving these separately, for the financial years ended March, 1931, to March, 1937; and whether there has been any alteration in the percentages paid during the same period?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. Member will find the receipts from these duties for the 10 years to 1935–36 in table 4 on page 8 of the recently published 79th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper 5297). The approximate receipts in the year 1936–37 were £77,000,000 for Estate Duty and £10,800,000 for Legacy and Succession Duties. The rates of duty are shown on pages 13 and 30 of the report. The only change in the rates of duty chargeable was that made by the Finance Act, 1930, in the Estate Duty on estates exceeding £120,000, the rates on which were increased in respect of deaths occurring after 31st July, 1930.

NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.

Sir Servington Savery (for Sir Arnold Gridley): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum he estimates would accrue in the financial year ending 3rst March, 1938, if one-third of the profits earned in that year by industrial and trading companies in excess of those earned in the previous year were paid into the Exchequer?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I regret I cannot furnish the estimate which my hon. Friend desires. I would point out that the taxation of profits proceeds, not by reference to the financial or fiscal year, but by reference to the trader's accounting year ending in the fiscal year, and that the proceeds accruing to the Exchequer before 31st March, 1938, of any tax levied on the profits of trading years ending in that year, must necessarily be very small, for in many cases there would be no time available to assess and collect the tax.

MINING ROYALTIES (GOVERNMENT'S DECISION).

Sir C. Edwards (for Mr. Jenkins): asked the Prime Minister whether the


special tribunal on the valuation of mining royalties has concluded its sittings; when its report will be ready for submission to the Government; and whether it will be available to Members of the House before the Government reach any decision upon the legislation proposed with regard to the nationalisation of mining royalties?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. The tribunal has given an award to the effect that 15 is the appropriate number of years' purchase to be applied to the agreed royalty income figure of £4,430,000. The compensation payable under the terms of the award will therefore be £66,450,000. The Government have decided to accept the award, and they intend to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL FUEL (STORAGE).

Mr. J. Henderson (for Mr. Dobbie): asked the Secretary for Mines whether a definite commencement has yet been made to provide the additional tankage necessary to store an adequate reserve supply of mineral oil to meet a national emergency?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (NATIVE MILITARY FORCES).

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the present native military forces in Jamaica; and whether it is proposed to revive any disbanded unit?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The present local military forces in Jamaica are the Jamaica Militia Artillery, the Jamaica Engineer Corps, and the Kingston Infantry Volunteers. I have no information about any proposal for the revival of any disbanded unit.

Oral Answers to Questions — HARWORTH COLLIERY DISPUTE.

Mr. E. Dunn: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the grave

breaches of the peace which have occurred at Harworth, and the probability of further outbreaks, he will take immediate steps to institute an inquiry to ascertain how best to restore and maintain public order.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): I have only seen the text of this question since the House met, but will give the best answer I can. The area, of course, is not one for the policing of which the Home Secretary is responsible, but on making inquiry this morning, the Home Office was informed by the chief constable that local conditions were normal to-day.

Mr. Dunn: Is the Home Secretary aware that the provocation which has been caused during the last few days at Harworth has really been due to the action of the men who are already at work together with the police assisting them?

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Home Secretary aware that the position at Harworth is rapidly becoming intolerable; and, in view of the statements against the impartiality of the police that have been made by responsible observers, will he investigate the position as regards police methods at Harworth?

Sir J. Simon: I have given the House the information which is available to me at the Home Office to-day. No doubt I shall get further reports. I do not think I can be expected to make any further statement now.

Mr. T. Williams: Has the Home Secretary any information indicating how many persons have been injured, whether among those presently employed, those who are disengaged, or the police; or what information has the Home Secretary in his possession?

Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary has said that he only received notice of this question since the House met, so he cannot be expected to have all the information.

Mr. Williams: In view of the fact that there is a feeling locally that those who are at present working were responsible for the disturbance, will the Home Secretary invite the chief of police for the County of Nottingham to institute an inquiry at once, since all sections of the community need nothing more than peace?

Sir J. Simon: I could not, of course, undertake to do that. As I have said, I have given the information that I have about the situation to-day, and no doubt I shall get reports.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices actively in this matter? Is he aware that those of us who have known such conditions and have engaged in strikes have never known anything like the hostility that there is between the public and the police in Harworth?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary has given all the information that he can.

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUS SERVICES, MAIDSTONE (STOPPAGE OF WORK).

Mr. Bossom: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the continued stoppage of ' bus services in the Maidstone area, he can take any constructive action to terminate the present unsatisfactory conditions?

Mr. E. Brown: The stoppage of work took place without the authority of the union of which the men are members, and until the constitutional position is restored by a return to work it is not possible for the matters is dispute to be discussed. As I stated recently, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Rochester (Captain Plugge), if the men resume work, in accordance with the advice of their union, their grievances can be considered in a constititional manner.

Mr. Bossom: Do I understand that, if the men return to work, their grievances can be immediately discussed?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEFENCE BONDS (ISSUE).

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to make any announcement on the subject of borrowing under the Defence Loans Act, 1937?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir, I have decided that in the general interests of local

authorities and other borrowers it is desirable that the market should be asquainted with my intentions. It is proposed to advertise on Wednesday morning details of an issue to be made on Thursday of 2½ per cent. National Defence Bonds to be the amount of £100,000,000 at 99½This will be a short to medium term security redeemable before the end of 1948 by annual drawings at par of not less than 20 per cent. of the amount of the loan, the first drawing being in the autumn of 1944. Subscriptions will be payable by instalments over three months, and the first dividend will be 13s. per cent, on 15th September, 1937. In order that small investors may have an opportunity of participating. I have arranged for a separate issue of registered Bonds in amounts of £5 and multiples of£5 up to a maximum of £1,000 to be made through Post Office Savings Banks and Trustee Savings Banks. The full issue price in these cases will be payable on application, and the first dividend, also payable on 15th September, 1937, will be 19s. per cent. The proceeds of the issue until required for financing the Defence Programme will be available for reducing the floating debt, and will in any case cover the estimated expenditure of £80,000,000 to be met this year from borrowed moneys.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask why the issue is for £100,000,000, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman estimated for an expenditure of £80,000,000 from loan; secondly, are the small bonds part of the larger issue; and, thirdly, will they also be issued at 99½?

Mr. Chamberlain: The answer to the first question is that there is no necessary relation between the amount of the borrowing and the amount which it is proposed to provide by way of Appropriation-in-Aid this year. I think I made that clear before. The Government will issue bonds or loans just as the market may appear to be favourable. In reply to the second question, the issue of the small amounts will he part of the whole issue. The answer to the third question, whether the price will be 99½, is Yes.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken power in this issue to redeem any outstanding sum, when the time comes for redemption, below par if the market price is below par at that date?

Mr. Chamberlain: No. I think I clearly stated the terms.

Oral Answers to Questions — HARWORTH COLLIERY DISPUTE.

Mr. Dunn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of the Home Secretary to take immediate action to prevent further breaches of the peace at Harworth.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I could not accept the hon. Member's Motion for the Adjournment of the House on a matter of that kind. The Home Secretary has told us that he has nothing to report, and the situation is quite quiet.

Mr. Bellenger: May I point out to you, Sir, as the matter is one affecting my own constituency, that affairs in Harworth are in a state which may rapidly develop into riots. I, therefore, ask whether you will reconsider your decision, as this is a matter not only of local but of national importance?

Mr. T. Williams: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that on Saturday evening a special midnight court was held and six persons who had been apprehended were brought before the court and, in view of the feeling in the district that those who are working are causing the trouble, and in order to avoid any further riots or misconduct, or breaking of the peace, injuring men, women and children, would it not be in the interests of peace and good local government and good relationships if an inquiry were instituted at the moment to ascertain exactly who was responsible for provoking the riots?

Mr. Speaker: All those things may be true and important, and it is quite possible that it may be necessary to hold an inquiry into them, but that does not make it a definite matter upon which the Adjournment of the House can be moved under Standing Order No. 8.

Mr. James Griffiths: Arising out of the dispute at Harworth, a national conference of delegates of the Miners' Federation has been called for Friday in London and the decision of that conference will in no small measure be determined by the events now taking place at Harworth. In view of the possibility of a ballot vote of the men in favour of tendering notices, which will mean a national coal strike, would it not be in the national interest that we should have an opportunity of fully discussing the events of the week?

Mr. Speaker: I have said that all those things may be quite true, and we might easily have a discussion upon them, but that is not a definite question on which I can allow the Adjournment of the House to be moved under the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEMBERS' EXPENSES) (No. 2) BILL,

"to make provision for the payment of the travelling expenses incurred by persons in discharging their duties in connection with assessment and other committees," presented by Sir George Bowyer; supported by Mr. John, Mr. Whiteley, Captain Gunston, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Graham White, Mr. T. Williams, Mr. Maitland, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, and Major Hills; to be read a Second Time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 91.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Blair, Sir R.


Acland, ft. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blaker, Sir R.


Acland-Troyts, Lt.-Col. G. J
Balniel, Lord
Blindell, Sir J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Bossom, A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Boulton, W. W.


Albery, Sir Irving
Baxter, A. Beverley
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Allan, Ll.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Assheton, R.
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Brass, Sir W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bernays, R. H.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bird, Sir R. B.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)




Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bull, B. B.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Harvey, Sir G.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Cary, R. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, J. R.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Channon, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rothschild, J. A. de


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hunter, T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Salt, E. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cranborne, Viscount
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Savery, Sir Servington


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Scott, Lord William


Crooke, J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crossley, A. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Selley, H. R.


Crowder, J F. E.
Leckie, J. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Doland, G. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duggan, H. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Dunglass, Lord
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Ellis, Sir G.
Maitland, A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elmley, Viscount
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Everard, W. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Findlay, Sir E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Touche, G. C.


Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wakefield, W. W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir j. S.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Goldie, N. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Watt, G. S. H.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wells, S. R.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
White, H. Graham


Grant-Ferris, R.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Granville, E. L.
Patrick, C. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, O.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Peat, C. U.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, R. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Petherick, M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Guinness, T. L. E. B.




Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Pilkington, R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Guy, J. C. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.



Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Daggar, G.
Gardner, B. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Dalton, H.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Gibbins, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughten)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Banfield, J. W.
Day, H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W


Batey, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Bellenger, F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Chater, D.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Cove, W. G.
Gallacher, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)







Hopkin, D.
Montague, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght-le-Sp'ng)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Kelly, W. T.
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Parker, J.
Thorne, W.


Kirby, B. V.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Lathan, G.
Potts, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Lawson, J. J.
Pritt, D. N.
Viant, S. P.


Leach, W.
Ritson, J.
Walker, J.


Leslie, J. R.
Rowson, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Logan, D. G.
Sanders, W. S.
Whiteley, W.


Luna, W.
Sexton, T. M.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Short, A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G.
Simpson, F. B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Mathers, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Maxton, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BILLS REPORTED.

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BUCKS WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

WATFORD CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Physical Training and Recreation Bill): Mr. Elliot and Captain McEwen; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Wedderburn and Mr. Young.

Report to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL LIST.

Ordered, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil List in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Select Committee on the Civil List.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL AREAS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Readers of Sir Walter Scott's books will remember that Andrew Fairservice as Rob Roy paid a visit to London and when he was asked what he thought about Parliament, said he did not understand why the two Houses should have their havers twice over. That was his trouble. Having our talks over large issues two and three and four times, as in the present case, before the Third Reading, has not only disadvantages, as Andrew Fair-service thought, but it has this advantage, that it makes it unnecessary for us to talk at length on the Third Reading, when we are confined to the proposals actually contained in the Bill. I shall, therefore, confine my attention to the proposals of the Bill. It is quite clear to the House as a whole that the Bill is one of a series of efforts made by the Government to help the Special Areas. The Bill goes further and comprises areas other than Special Areas. It is called:
A Bill to continue until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, and to enable further assistance to be given to the areas specified in the First Schedule to that Act, and to certain other areas.
That is the long Title and it shows that the Bill has three purposes. The first purpose is to continue the Special Areas Act for another two years. That Act, which was due to expire on 31st March last, and was given a temporary extension of life under the Expiring Laws Bill, would otherwise have come to an end on 31st May next. I am sure that the House as a whole, taking a long view, would not desire that Act to come to an end.
The second purpose is to give the Commissioner of the Special Areas certain additional powers, which he does not already possess, to give financial inducements to industrial undertakings establishing themselves in the Special Areas. Thirdly, it is designed to enable the Treasury to give financial assistance

directly and indirectly to new undertakings which establish themselves in certain areas which have suffered from prolonged unemployment but are outside the Special Areas.
In broad terms those are the three main objects secured by the Bill. I do not propose to detain the House very long on the matter, but I will say a word or two further to what I said on the Financial Resolution and in Committee on two or three of the issues. It is now clearly understood in the House and the country that the purpose of the Special Areas Act was to initiate an experimental and unorthodox procedure with regard to economic and social betterment in those areas. On more than one occasion I have told the House that it is my belief, and that of the Government, that there is no single formula and no simple formula for instilling new life into the areas which have suffered from heavy unemployment due to many causes. It is all the more true that there is no simple formula for this matter if the aim is to replace, by a variety of new industries, a single industry heavily hit, so that all the eggs are not in the one basket as they have been too often in the past. The intention of the Bill is to induce other industries to go to these areas so that in future their prosperity may not be concerned solely with the prosperity or adversity of one or at most two industries. As I said some time ago, the aim was to make a systematic attack at many points, taking care to embark only upon measures which have a reasonable hope of success, to win that ground, and then to consolidate it before making a further advance in any particular directions. I need not go further into that, except to say that if hon. Members will look at page 161 of Sir Malcolm Stewart's Third Report they will see, in the schedule he has drawn up, the many types of effort undertaken under the original Act of 1934, and how widespread and diverse has been the aid given in these areas. Up to the moment in Great Britain in the Special Areas the total commitments of the Commissioners are not less than £13,000,000.
The second main purpose of the Bill is to enable further assistance to be given to the Special Areas. Two special ways of doing this are covered in Clause 4 which deals with contributions by the Commissioners to road and drainage expenses in Special Areas. One of these is


very important. In areas where streets and roads have been needing repair the Commissioner has not been able to assist the carrying out of repairs in the past because the Minister of Transport had the power to give the grants. This Bill does away with that embargo and will enable the Commissioner to go straight ahead with very necessary work in some of these towns. The other is a comparatively minor point. It deals with the question of field drainage.
The Bill is concerned with two things; first of all with giving an initial move to induce private enterprise to go to these areas. I shall quote to the House one sentence from Sir Malcolm Stewart's report and ask the House to think about the significance of the words in the light of this Bill:
To start the movement the initial effort must be powerful.
There can be no doubt of the adequacy of the attractive effect of the powers it is proposed to give the Commissioners under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill; very wide, very unorthodox powers, and the Commissioner himself is unfettered in his discretion as to how he will use those powers. He will be able to acquire or to build and let factories at economic rents. He will be able to give grants for not more than five years at his own discretion towards rates and Income Tax, and, what was not advocated by the Commissioner but what the Government think more powerful than the other two, namely, grants towards rent—a very powerful inducement indeed. We have been encouraged to think that we may have discovered a method which will really start the movement with a strong initial pull. In some speeches at any rate, in this House, it has been pointed out that there is a possibility of unfairness to other areas because of the strength of the inducements contained inside the Bill.
I do not for one moment wish to suggest that every part of every Special Area is equally capable of industrial development on the new lines to the same extent. We know that inside the same area there is a great diversity of conditions, and regard will be had to those conditions in working out the new plans. Some are too remote from the main arteries of transport, others have not sufficient sites for new industries, and there are a score of other diversified conditions which make

it much more suitable and easy to induce new industries to go to some parts of the areas than to others. On a previous occasion I pointed out that the combined efforts now being made to induce new industries to go to these areas are already having success. I have mentioned the six new undertakings that were to be established in South Wales with a capital of about £1,500,000. I also referred to Tyneside, the Team Valley Estate, and Scotland, and the reopening of the colliery in West Cumberland at Whitehaven; also factories which are to be established in Special Areas in connection with the Defence programme. There have been developments in this regard since I spoke, two of which are in an advanced state. The first is the new shell-filling plant to be installed in the works of the United Steel Company at Workington, and a second is the new central magazine depot for the Admiralty near Fishguard, and there are others under consideration.
Before I come to the third main purpose of the Bill, there are two other matters I shall mention. First in regard to the West Cumberland Site Development Company. Since the Debate on the Financial Resolution considerable progress has been made with regard to the establishment of this industrial company in West Cumberland, which is to clear sites and build factories in that area. The memorandum and articles of association of the company are now settled, and I understand that the Commissioner is shortly issuing invitations to the prospective chairman and members of the board. The second is the South-West Durham Improvement Association. It is not possible to report quite such rapid progress in this case, but here again the memorandum and articles of association have been agreed and settled and the Commissioner is now devoting his attention to securing a good working executive board. The duties of this board will be to investigate the economic possibilities of South-West Durham, to undertake a certain amount of site clearance, to improve the general appearance of the district by removing derelict buildings, and he will also give special consideration to the problem which is created by the existence of small and isolated villages where there is little prospect of industrial development. I would emphasise one point on which there has been some misunderstanding, namely, that neither the


Government nor the Commissioner has ever said that South-West Durham as a whole must revert to agriculture or remain stagnant. I say that because there has been some misunderstanding, and the report of Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners had that suggestion. But I was perfectly clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that neither the Government nor the Special Commissioner necessarily accepted the view of that report. Indeed there are parts of this area in which the Commissioner will do his utmost to encourage industrial development. Yet, as in other areas, it must be recognised that there are parts, even there, which are not equally well placed, and parts which will more easily attract new industries.
I must say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) regarding the Team Valley Estate. I cannot but think that on the rapid journey he took near that estate he must, as the Australians say, have been looking sideways. I do not suggest that he was asleep, but he must have been looking sideways. The facts as they are do not bear out his rapid impression. At the moment there are 500 men working on the estate, it factories are being erected, over two miles of road have been built, the electricity sub-station has been erected, the drainage is in, as is also a temporary water main. A large portion of the Team diversion has been cut, thousands of yards of fill have been put in for the new estate railway. Work has been started on an administrative block and arrangements have been made to date for 31 factories. The first factory, occupying 9,000 square feet, will be open within the next three weeks, I understand. The next factory, covering over 18,000 square feet, will be open soon after. On 3rd May the third tenant is to start to move his machinery in. That is a true picture and very different from that given to the House by the hon. Member for Seaham. These fads will show that real and rapid progress is being made. In view of the various speeches I have already made on the Bill I do not propose to detain the House long on the present occasion. Let me say that in order to stimulate private enterprise negotiations are constantly going on, and the facts that I have been able to give the House up to the moment will, as the weeks go on, mean that Members who represent Special Areas will

have more and more new industries to consider as likely to come into their areas.

Mr. Maxton: Who is carrying on these negotiations?

Mr. Brown: They have been carried on under the Act of 1934 by the Government in connection with the Nuffield Trust. The bodies work together and we are using every effort to induce private enterprise to start in the Special Areas and we have been successful in the case of six industries in South Wales.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister has mentioned one or two bodies. But who precisely is doing the job for the Government?

Mr. Brown: The link between the bodies is the Special Commissioner and Lord Portal, who is Chairman of the Nuffield Trust.

Mr. Lawson: The question of the Team Valley Estate is rather important. The right hon. Gentleman says that six new industries are going there.

Mr. Brown: I said that 31 factories had been arranged up to date; and I referred to three which are going to the Team Valley almost immediately, one within three weeks, the second soon after that —the roof is on—and the third before 3rd May.

Mr. Lawson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether these industries are simply industries transferred from other parts of the country which would normally not have been expected to operate in the North of England?

Mr. Brown: I think not. I think they are new enterprises which have been attracted by the opportunity given them by the Team Valley Estate, and by the knowledge that there is a fine reserve of labour, some of the finest labour in the whole world. These areas have great attractions on more than one side, and I am sure the whole House will wish to emphasise that particular point. In addition to giving the Commission power to do these things in the Special Areas, the Bill also provides, in Clause 5, for additional help to be given to similar areas which are not inside the Act of 1934. I spoke at length on this matter, and I propose to add only one word now. It is, that the Treasury is to provide £2,000,000. I want to make it


clear that it is not a loan like the £1,000,000 under S.A.R.A.; it is not a revolving fund, but a sum to be provided by the Treasury to be applied in cases where site companies induce manufacturers to come to the areas.
To sum up. The Bill extends the power of the Special Commissioner in these areas and also embodies the answer to the demand of the then Special Commissioner, Sir Malcolm Stewart, that the greatest single service that can be done for these areas would be to provide a magnet to induce a more diversified series of industries to settle down, operate and succeed in these areas. It is an answer which comes at a very appropriate moment, for we all know that the industrial tide is moving very strongly just now. It is also in line with the real trend of modern development, namely, a demand for a much greater diversity of goods for all consumers, and, not only that, a supply of new industries to supply hundreds of new articles which were not thought of 25 and 30 years ago. Being in line with the trend of modern development it is surely wise planning to see that we do all we can to redress the balance in favour of these areas which have suffered so long and so heavily from the great depression. It is our confident belief that these inducements will prove most valuable, and I give the House the assurance that they will be used with energy and dispatch, both by the Commissioner himself, by the Government and by all associated with them, in order that a happier time may lie ahead for the hundreds and thousands of souls unemployed in these areas than they have had, unhappily, in recent years.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: This is the final stage of a long and hotly contested Bill. It is the seventh day of debate, and I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill stands to-day as it did on Second Reading, and differs very little from the Money Resolution. As a matter of fact, there is to be only one word altered. The Minister of Labour, when he was very much alive on Friday morning—I forget the exact time, and I am sure he does not remember it—promised to accept an Amendment. As a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman has been a very good stone-wailer. I wish his imagination as a constructive statesman

was equal to his capacity for stonewalling. He accepted one Amendment, the alteration of one word, and then he said that he would see that the matter was put right in another place. It was merely a question of grammar. After seven days' debate, on one of the most serious matters affecting the life of this country, and after hon. Members in different parts of the House had borne testimony to the grim conditions prevailing in these areas, testimony gained at first-hand experience, the Government have not accepted any Amendment.

Mr. Batey: Would not even discuss them.

Mr. Lawson: That is a deep wrong to Parliament as well as to the Special Areas. We said what we thought about the Money Resolution, which tied the House down, and I hope for the sake of fruitful discussions in this House, and in fhe interests of democratic institutions, we shall not have a repetition of that kind of thing. The right hon. Gentleman has told us a good many things which the Bill is going to do. There are 1,500,000 unemployed in this country. Most of them—at least 1,000,000—are concentrated in the distressed areas. These areas cover but a comparatively small part of the country—a matter of great importance and significance for the nation. It means that the average citizen who does not live in these areas cannot be expected to know all the facts or understand what they mean, but it is certainly the business of statesmen to treat these conditions very seriously indeed. The lack of employment is in the basic industries. Unemployment is in those industries upon which the country still depends for its life. We are told that prosperity prevails in secondary industries, but if the country had to depend upon them it would perish
This nation, industrially, still lives by coal, cotton, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering. No amount of juggling with figures can avoid the fact that fewer and fewer people are being employed in these great industries. In the North-East, coal mining during the last 12 years has lost one-quarter of its workers, iron and steel has also lost one-quarter, and shipbuilding about two-fifths. I do not know what is the loss in cotton, but it is very great. Year by year there has been a decrease in the


number of workers employed in these industries, and that is leading to larger numbers of unemployed being concentrated in these particular areas, at a time when we are told there is something like a boom in trade and employment. If that is the condition of things during a boom, there will be a very grave problem when the inevitable downward slide in industry comes.
The great problem that has to be faced is not one of the Special Areas, but of the great basic industries and the whole areas that those industries cover. It is a question of getting a right balance between the principal industries and the secondary industries. This Bill does not do anything to correct the balance; all it does is to try, by what I might call indirect means, to get a number of factories in certain areas. It deals with the Special Areas rather than with the whole of the areas in which the basic industries are established. For instance, it fails utterly to deal with Lancashire. It is true that there is in the Bill a proposal to set up site-companies, but the cotton areas are only dealt with indirectly through site-companies.
Because it concentrates on the Special Areas, it plays one district off against another in the old industrial areas. It plays the Team Valley off against Middlesbrough. There is very bad unemployment in Middlesbrough. I agree with an hon. Member who said the other night that it is the irony of history that Middlesbrough should be outside in these matters, although it was a former Member for Middlesbrough, the late Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, who first drew attention to this lamentable state of things. In the Durham area, the Bill plays off the Team Valley against South-West Durham; it plays the Team Valley off against Sunderland. The Bill deals in a petty, irritating sort of way with the problem, and has the effect of creating jealousy among local authorities without enabling one to be sure that it will do anything really effective. As to the Team Valley, I was surprised to hear the description which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour gave of the Team Valley Trading Estate. I agree that it is laid down on a large scale and has a beautiful situation, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that there is not much sign of factories there if one

looks at it from the railway or from the road. I do not doubt what the right hon. Gentleman said, but it was news to me, and I may mention that I went along the road yesterday and observed the estate very closely. I do not want any false impressions to prevail on this point.
The Team Valley is in a good natural position, and the road and the railway go alongside it; if any place is likely to develop, that is the most likely place in the county. But what will be the effect of this estate on South-West Durham? It will drastically reduce the chances of South-West Durham, which is in a most lamentable position. I have the figures for unemployment in South-West Durham for 15th March of this year and they are as follow: Bishop Auckland, 39.5 per cent. (10,630 persons); Cockfield (a colliery area), 37.1 per cent. (1,980 persons); Crook, 30.4 per cent. (9,300 persons); Spennymoor 24.1 per cent. (11,010 persons); Shildon, 39.8 per cent. (3,790 persons). Sunderland has nearly 3o per cent. The same applies to a whole range of districts within that Special Area. Even at a time when great orders are being placed for armaments purposes and when there is a call for more regular work in the mines, unemployment on that scale is prevailing in those areas. The net effect of the Team Valley Estate will be to lessen the chances of South-West Durham of getting new factories established. There is something the Government could have done for South-West Durham. I want the right hon. Gentleman to treat this matter very seriously. The Commissioner, through the Government, has completely avoided his duty with reference to the draining of mines in South-West Durham. They have tried to put the question of the draining of mines on to the gentlemen who investigated the possibility of draining them. The question has been shuffled from one place to another, the latest move being to ask the Durham County Council for its opinion. We want to know who is going to drain those pits in South-West Durham.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And in other areas.

Mr. Lawson: I was taking South-West Durham as an illustration. In those pits there are millions of tons of coal of very good quality. The mines remain flooded because the people who own the pits have gone away and take no interest in them. The coal is wasting. We have very good


grounds for saying that if the pits were drained, some of them would work and would give employment, at any rate as the thin end of the wedge, to the people in those areas. It seems to me that there is not very much sincerity on the part of the Government in its attitude about putting industries in South-West Durham if they refuse—

Major Braithwaite: Will the hon. Member tell us how it will be possible to get the standard tonnage from those pits under the Coal Mines Act?

Mr. Lawson: That is a very simple question. A pit quite near to these pits, but outside the flooded area, after having been closed for five years, was opened within the last two weeks by another company. The standard tonnage could be dealt with easily. There are companies—at least, I have heard of one—which are willing to operate in South West Durham. Moreover, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that some of these pits are rather shallow ones, and would not call for the same costs of maintenance. If they were freed of water, they would be good pits, and some of them are more worthy of consideration than some of the pits that are actually being worked in Durham. The position in South West Durham in this matter is only an instance of what happens in other parts of the country. I ask the Minister who is to reply to tell us whether the Government accept responsibility for the de-watering of these mines It is a matter of very great importance to the people in South West Durham.
I have said that the Government are not taking any steps to correct the balance between the secondary industries and the older basic industries. I know that the Bill gives a special financial temptation to companies in order to try to divert certain industries into those areas. The question is much bigger than that. I think that past experience has shown that even if there are some industries going to Wales, Scotland, Lancashire and Durham, hardly the edge of the question is being touched. With 1,500,000 unemployed at a time such as this, with £1,000,000 unemployed in the old basic industry areas, and having had 1,000,000 unemployed for the greater part of the 18 years since the War, has not experience shown the need for a Minister being appointed for the

purpose of surveying industry and of directing—even compelling—people to stop planting factories in some parts of the country and to establish themselves instead in the older basic industry areas? I am sure that is a principle that will be accepted in this country before we are very much older. The Government have given the steel companies power to stop steel mills being established in certain parts of the country. They have stopped them at Jarrow.

Miss Wilkinson: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lawson: I am very pleased to hear the voice of Jarrow once more. They have given power to the coalowners to close certain pits and to limit output. In every direction they have given industry the power to limit output, to stop operations at certain works and to say that works shall not be established in certain places—is it not high time that the Government, having the benefit of that experience which has been forced upon the country by the facts of modern industry, should do the job themselves.
As far as I can see, the Bill does not alter the general powers of the Commissioner. He remains in exactly the same position. It is true there are two specific things in connection with which he has been given some power. One is the drainage of agricultural land and there is another power which, at the moment, I forget. But the Commissioner is still in the lamentable position of wanting to do certain things and having no power to do them. The right hon. Gentleman told us that we had only to look at the report in order to see the large and varied number of matters with which the Commissioner had dealt and the advantages which he had given to the Special Areas. I come from one of the worst of those areas and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I see very little evidence there of the work of the Commissioner. That is mainly due to the fact, as the Commissioner himself said in his third report, that he had no real power himself and that in order to get any power to do anything, he had to go from Department to Department, which occupied a considerable time.
I challenge the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to deny, on behalf of the Government, my statement that the position of the Commissioner—against which, be it remembered, there was considerable


criticism from both sides of the House—remains unchanged. I challenge him to show that the position of the Commissioner is in the least altered by the Bill. The Commissioner is still just as much the pawn of the Departments as he has been during the past two years. He has no real power to deal with such things as amenities or the cleaning up of those burning slag-heaps in Lancashire, of which we heard in Friday's discussion, and which are even worse than the pit-heaps in Wales, because of the way in which they are scattered about the country. When it comes to a question of making the landscape decent and cleaning up these sites, the Commissioner has no power unless such powers as may be given him by some obscure person in some Department. We are considering here a problem which every thinking Member of the House wishes to have dealt with effectively. It is a problem which is disturbing the minds of the most thoughtful people in the country, almost irrespective of party. Yet it is a fact which has been expounded and commented on by almost every type of person and of newspaper that the Commissioner during the past two years has been almost helpless. He will remain helpless even after this Bill has been passed.
I shall never be able to understand why the critics on the other side of the House who were so generously disposed towards the Special Areas in the earlier stages of these discussions, and who compelled the Government to take some action, should have hastily retreated when this Bill was introduced, since the very centre of the position which they then assailed has been left untouched by the Government in this Measure. The Government seem to me to be relying as much as ever upon transference. That is the centre of their policy. I think the House can bear witness that I have never been an opponent of transference as such, but I ask the Government to take it from me that transference is now becoming something like a menace to the areas affected. As the Commissioner pointed out in his third report, during the last 15 years, 608,000 young people have left the Special Areas. I ask the House to mark the fact that that number refers not to the depressed areas generally, not to the old industrial areas as a whole, which have been afflicted by unemployment, but only to that micro-

scopic portion of those areas selected by the Government for treatment.
From that comparatively small area alone 608,000 young people—they are practically all young people—have gone elsewhere. I am glad to say that most of them have been placed. Some of them have had difficulties to face. But as I said in the Second Reading Debate their going has robbed the older industrial areas of young people to such an extent that people in the shipbuilding industry are complaining that they cannot get apprentices and in the mining industry they are saying that they cannot get youngsters to do the jobs which used to be done by them. Personally I am not sorry at that because some of the jobs which the youngsters were doing were really jobs for men. But I wish to point out that this is not merely a complaint made by us on the ground of sentiment, that these young people have had to leave their families and that homes have been broken up in consequence.
At the same time I assure the House that this has meant very grim experiences for a great many families. It is not that the people are soft, but when a man and a woman living on a small wage bring up a boy or girl, they want to keep that boy or girl there because they like to have their children at home and boys of 14, at any rate, when it comes to industrial matters ought not, I think, to be away from home. It is not merely that consideration which is involved. Sometimes a little help is needed in the home. I shall not soon forget an experience I had recently of meeting a man who is an old friend of mine. He answered me rather abruptly and seemed unwilling to enter into conversation, which was very unusual on his part. Then he apologised and told me that he was much upset because he had two boys and a girl who had gone away and he added that it was a shame that children should have to leave their homes in order to get work.
The Government, as I say, still rely upon transference, upon drawing away the boys and the girls from these areas, as a means of dealing with the problem. When are they going to do something in the direction of compensating the areas which are losing those boys and girls, the areas which educated them and housed


them, and supplied their social needs? When are the Government going to consider making some return of that kind? I know the Minister of Health says that some return has been given in the block grant. But the block grant in relation to the need of the Special Areas is like a drop of water in the sea. If it gives a mythical 5s. to Merthyr, it leaves Merthyr with rates of over 20S. in the If it gives a mythical 2s. to Durham—which turns out to be only 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d. in reality—it leaves Durham with rates of 16s. in the £. If it leaves those areas in such a position that they cannot carry out their administrative duties under the law, then it is time that the Government were taking some extraordinary measures, some measures more effective than those proposed in this Bill, to deal with the problem. We have always taken the same attitude in regard to this question. We opposed the first steps taken by the Government because we thought they were dealing in a very limited way with the problem. We thought from the first that a matter involving great and disturbing economic changes required the special attention of the Cabinet instead of the casual attention of the Minister of Labour. But we said although we disagreed with the Government's proposal we were prepared to see what the result of the experiment would be. We said: "The conditions are such that we have to accept the little that you offer."
We take the same attitude in respect of this Bill. We would not think of voting against its Third Reading, but we warn the Government and the House that the problems underlying this question are wider and deeper than is indicated by the microscopic areas selected by the Government and termed "Special." Rearmament having been accomplished, the Government will only have succeeded in sidestepping for the time being a grim problem, one which will yet bring even more pain and sorrow, and sadness to these areas than they have already suffered. It will be discovered by the time this Measure has run its course, that instead of having done something for the Special Areas the Government have rendered an ill-service to the country by blinding themselves to the real issues and to the real problem which calls for attention.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: The number of days allotted to this Bill and the length of some of the Debates upon it show the interest which is taken in it by Members in all parts of the House. This is the seventh day of the proceedings on this Bill, but I hope the Minister of Labour will not now content himself with saying that he sees that it is good and that he proposes to rest. I hope on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman will proceed to make the fullest use of the powers such as they are, which the Bill gives the Government and through the Government, the Commissioner. We have noticed a certain reluctance on the part of the Government to give us the opportunities which we would have liked for the full discussion of the Bill and at this stage, we are entitled to point out again, that much of the time in Committee was occupied by Amendments placed on the Paper by supporters of the Government. We regret that on account of the way in which the Financial Resolution was drafted and the limited time afforded us, fuller discussion of some of the Amendments was not possible. In spite of that fact, those of us who sit on these benches welcome the Bill for what it is worth. Its faults are those of omission rather than commission. I doubt whether the Bill does, in any sense, accomplish what some of us hoped for from any new Special Areas Bill which was introduced. I think it has been best expressed by the Commissioner in his last Report. The passage may have been quoted before but it is, I think, worth quoting again at this stage, because many of us have approached the problem in exactly this way. The Commissioner says in paragraph 13:
Seeing that the Special Areas Act provides no means of directly reducing unemployment, the all-important question that arises from a study of the results obtained from its administration is whether the time is not now ripe for a second experiment which, whilst continuing work already embarked upon, would make an attempt to deal more directly with the problem of unemployment.
When the Government realised the limitations of the first Special Areas Act, which some of us pointed out at the time, and when it had been proved that those limitations of the Commissioner's powers were a hindrance to effective work, we hoped that this Bill might have


inaugurated a new and vigorous policy. I do not think the Government can really claim for this Bill that it does that. All it does is to widen the powers of the Commissioners in some small, though perhaps important, ways. It permits the Commissioners to let factories for gain, and it does make a breach in the former rule—a condition laid down in the original Act—which has enormously hampered the work of the Commissioners.
We welcome the power to contribute towards rent, Income Tax and rates, but we doubt whether these inducements will really be sufficient to prevent the drift of industry to the London area and the South. We believe that something more vigorous than that will be necessary; and, while the Minister may be able in a few years time to say that half a dozen or a dozen or, we may hope, more industries have been started in the distressed areas, partly as a result of these additional inducements, we do not believe that, unless these inducements are administered in a much broader way than has been the case with much of the legislation dealing with the Special Areas in the past, they will prove sufficient.
We welcome some small points, and as representing Cumberland I particularly welcome the provisions about field drainage. We live near the Scottish Border. Not only do we envy the Scots their privileges, but, like them, we perhaps sometimes want rather more than we can get, and I should have liked to see the provisions extended to rather wider areas. But I believe they will do something to meet a type of unemployment among unskilled workers which is very difficult to deal with in some towns. Our experience has been that with a skilled foreman it is still possible to use quite unskilled labour, and I hope that this labour will be used on a large scale for this purpose. A small step has been taken in the direction of meeting the real grievance of the distinction between the Special Areas and the distressed areas. I am not quite clear how the Clause affecting the provision of sites, which is so carefully hedged round and circumscribed with conditions, is actually going to work. We hope that this Clause, Clause 5, like the other Clauses of the Act, will be used, in the Minister's phrase, with energy and despatch. But unless the Government are going to offer

greater inducements in the way of factories and in the way of terms for loans than can be obtained from private sources, these provisions will be of very little practical use.
There is another special problem, and that is the transport problem, which is a serious one in many areas. In Cumberland we want a new trunk road, and I, do not see anything in this Bill which will, facilitate that. That is a problem which affects other districts as well as Cumberland. And that brings me to the point that we had hoped that under this Bill the legislation which has grown up piecemeal would have been unified under the Commissioners or under a Special Minister. That is another omission from this Bill which we regret. But, looking at the problem from a broad point of view, this I believe is an opportunity which should not have been missed for laying the foundations for a much more permanent reconstruction of many districts in the North of England, for using the experience which the Commissioner has already obtained and, above all, for preparing for the emergency which will arise when the rearmament programme is complete. We may look forward then possibly to an even worse slump than the one we have gone through, and in this Bill the opportunity should have been taken to develop and explore the possibilities of establishing new industries, which would deal with the situation when that time came.
If that is not done the North may relapse again into a still worse depression, because you are in many places creating further productive capacity which, when this hurried boom in iron and steel is complete, may leave us with an even more difficult problem than the one we have at present. After all, the problem on the North-East Coast, for instance, was largely the aftermath of the intense activity of the War, and plans should be made now to deal with the aftermath of the intense activity of the armaments boom; otherwise the last stage of the Special Areas will be worse than the first.
I should like for a moment to examine the effect of the rearmament programme on the Special Areas. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed, perhaps with justification, that the financial recovery which has taken place since 1931 and 1932, the worst years of the slump, has


made it possible for him to finance the rearmament programme. I would point out that the Chancellor is also under an obligation to the idle men and the idle plant which make rearmament possible at the present time. Had this country's man-power and industrial resources been fully occupied in the last six months, the carrying out of the Government's rearmament programme would have been almost impossible without a very serious rise in prices. In that sense the Chancellor is beholden to the men who have stood idle, ready to work, all these years. He is beholden to those men who have been bullied by their means test supervisors, who have been told, at one period at any rate—though perhaps one does not hear it so much now—that they were idle and did not want to work. They are wanted now, and if there were war they would be wanted even more. Without the industrial slack that has existed in heavy industry rearmament would have been a very much more difficult policy to carry out.
I do not know that there is a moral to that at the present time except the very simple and perhaps too obvious one that when time has passed and men are no longer wanted for the making of armaments they should not be thrown back upon the industrial scrap-heap and neglected until perhaps some further national crisis comes and they are called upon to come to the rescue. Of course, fundamentally the problem is the problem of the export trade, and if there is one consolation to be derived from the rearmament boom it is to my mind this: If it proves to be possible to re-employ a large part of the million and a half unemployed something may have been done to break that desperate fatalism which I find in all parties and in all parts of England—the feeling that somehow or other unemployment is inevitable, that it is due to mechanisation, to the loss of our export trade, and that nothing can be done about it except to grin and bear it. At least this temporary expedient does show that means can be adopted and that it is not necessary to put up with the desolation of unemployment indefinitely.
We on these benches are not satisfied with this Bill, and all we can say is that we hope that the Minister of Labour will look ahead and will contemplate the time when reconstruction will be even more

necessary than it is to-day. The rearmament programme may be a short-term policy, but this Bill should really be the long-term policy, and if you compare the short-term and the long-term policies, the money spent on the short-term policy is ten times the amount that is actually being spent on more permanent reconstruction and the creation of new industries in these areas. Men as well as machines deteriorate, and I will quote to the House one further passage from Sir Malcolm Stewart's last report:
It is not generally realised how far below the standard strength and health enjoyed by the normal active working man are those who have been long out of work, and how severely they suffer both physically and mentally from the loss of habit of work.
I do not know whether I am in order in mentioning that, because it does not occur in the Bill, but I recommend again to the Minister to consider whether something cannot be done to improve the nutrition of men, women, and children in the Special Areas. There is nothing about it in this Bill, and that is another omission that we regret. Let me suggest to the Government benches that if that war comes about which they are so busy warning us, the question of the manpower in the distressed areas and among the unemployed generally will be a matter which may be a very serious item in the future. I hope the Minister of Labour will not rest on this seventh day, on the seventh day of this Bill, that he will not rest content, but that he will see to it that the somewhat vague provisions of the Bill are administered so as to give the maximum of effect to the Bill. We have not been altogether happy about some Acts of Parliament that have been passed. We feel, for instance, that the administration of S.A.R.A. has been such as to render the effect which it might have had very much less than we had hoped. In spite of rearmament and in spite of this Bill, I fear that there will be a very high proportion of unemployment in some of the towns and villages in the mining areas of South Wales, Durham, Cumberland, and elsewhere. Therefore, my last word is that the Government should see to it that this Bill, which has been forced through this House, whether we liked it or not and in spite of all our criticism, is made the fullest possible use of.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin: There is one thing upon which Members in every part of the


House must be in complete agreement, and that is that it is most certainly not in the best interests of this House that a Money Resolution should be introduced a t the beginning in precisely the same terms as the Bill which we are now discussing on the Third Reading. I think the very fact that the attendance in this House at this moment is such as it is shows that the heart and the interest have been knocked completely out of the Bill, because Members know that whatever they say cannot alter in any way the terms of the Bill, which were originally settled in the Money Resolution. With the object and the purpose of the Bill every Member on this side is in complete accord with the Minister, and the only question that has to be asked is, Does this Bill carry out the purpose for which every Member desires that it should be used? It is with very great regret that I, along with other Members on this side, have come to the conclusion that this Bill must of necessity be a failure. The problem with which it deals has been stated over and over again, and it is not for me at this stage to re-state it, but in so far as the Bill continues the old Act, I think it is a good Bill. But does it go outside that Act? Does it in any way do anything for areas other than the Special Areas? I am of the opinion that it brings no assistance at all to what have been called "certified areas." Perhaps I am wrong in saying that it brings no assistance, because if the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act shows that it is utterly futile in doing that which it sets out to do, then certainly new methods will have to be employed.
May I use the county which my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and I represent as an example? I hope the Minister, in his reply, will be able to deal with this matter, because it is one that is pressing with a weight that cannot even be imagined on the people in the valleys that have been producing the finest anthracite in the world. For them this Bill is completely futile and absolutely hopeless. It brings no hope whatsoever to thousands and thousands of the people who live in these valleys, and I entirely agree that there is no hope for the people of the Gwendraeth or Amman Valleys in this Bill. I should like to examine the terms of the Bill to see whether there is really any hope for them in it. Carmarthenshire is not a Special Area, although

the figures for unemployment for March of this year are as follows: Carmarthen-shire, 24.8; Glamorganshire, 26.2; and Monmouthshire, 22.7—or much about the same thing. The unemployment in Carmarthenshire is higher in fact than in Monmouthshire. In February, in Carmarthenshire, it was 34.5, in Glamorgan-shire 27, and in Monmouthshire 23. Here is an area comparable with Glamorgan-shire and Monmouthshire which is much worse off than either of the other two. Take particular pockets in this county. The unemployment percentage in Ammanford in March of this year was 36.6. What has the Minister to say of a town and a district like Garnant, with 57.5 this month, 74 last month, and 64 in the month before that? Yet in spite of that this area is not a Special Area, and it will not have the advantages which the old Act might bring it, and in my submission there is nothing in this Bill that will give this area that is hit in this way anything. It must be apparent to every Member of the House that this is an area that needs help, but it gets no help at all.
Under Clause 5 of the Bill, as I understand it, representations must be made to the Minister, and I presume that they must be made either by the county council, or by the district councils, or by anybody else, but I presume that it would be a special duty cast upon the county council to make the representations themselves. What are the representations which they must make? First of all, they must show that there is an overwhelming amount of unemployment in the district. That can easily be done. The second point that they have to show to the Minister is that they have a site-company which can be brought into the district. Where on earth will this county council find such a site-company? I dare to say in this House that the county council for the county of Carmarthenshire could not find such a company with the hope that it could be formed in the way that is set out in the Bill to come down into these valleys. It is utterly absurd. I do not think they could find such a company, and unless they do find one, they cannot get any of the advantages which are offered to the certified areas.
It is only a week ago that I was in this particular valley, the Gwendraeth Valley, in a little village called Ponthenry. I believe I am right in saying that not a


single man is working there at all. The colliery close at hand has been closed, and I believe that it has been closed for good and all, but there they were trying to enjoy themselves. Near by there is another little village, the village of Pontyates, dependent entirely on one industry, and when the local colliery closes there, all goes; everything is finished for them. Yet under these circumstances, I must tell the House, these people are behaving in the most courageous way and doing what they can to make the best of things as they are. These are people whom I think to be the best people on earth, the kind of people who are thrifty. Nearly every one of them, for instance, owns his own house, and here they are. They look at this Bill, they study it, they go to their local county councillors to see what can be done under it, and they find no hope at all. For them, it is absolutely hopeless.
A county such as Carmarthenshire is debarred even from using the parts of the Bill which say that help may be given for land drainage. There are two valleys, the Towy and Gwendraeth, which are eminently suitable for land drainage, but they cannot get a penny. Every year as regularly as clockwork floods come there. They go over the whole land, they spoil a good part of it, and then the floods go back. That happens every year, but under this Bill no help can be given, because that area is not a Special Area. It is for that reason that I believe this Bill is going to be a failure as regards the certified areas. I regret to have to say that. I think the Minister intends well for those areas, and I ask him to tell us whether he thinks that any use can be made of the Bill generally for these people in the Amman Valley and in the Gwendraeth Valley.
Further than that, we have about the county small industries, as in the case of Velindre and Llandyssul for weaving. In the old days the Minister knew them very well when he was fighting for other interests in elections. He met the people at that time and he knows that they have for years carried on that industry. I hope the Minister will be able to say that there is some way out of this difficulty to find a site-company that will bring some hope to the people who are not in Special Areas, but who are on the fringe of them.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to add my condemnation of this Bill because we have waited so long and been pressing so strongly for a new Measure which would bring some immediate and definite prospects of relief to the Special Areas. I also want to deal with that part of the Bill which we expected would provide for those otherwise fairly prosperous areas where there is a high proportion of unemployment. The part of the Bill that deals with the Special Areas is entirely inadequate. I have in mind a district which is probably one of the most distressed of the Special Areas largely because the mining industry, which was the principal industry, has closed down, not because there is an abundance of coal, but because, at least in the case of the last colliery to be closed, it was unable to make a profit. I am persuaded that there is an abundance of coal remaining in the area. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred to the de-watering of mines in South-West Durham in order to make them a live proposition again. We have in the area that I have in mind the same position—a valuable seam of coal waiting to be exploited, but, because of the water in the works, private enterprise has not been able to tackle the expenditure that would be involved. If this Bill contained some glimmer of hope, however slender, that would make it possible for that area to be de-watered, I should look forward to the prospect of the men who are now unemployed having some work. I can, however, see nothing in the Bill that will help in that direction.
What else is there that they can expect in that district? The Commissioner has certain powers. He can let a factory, but before he does so it is evident that some company will have to be satisfied that a factory will be a profitable proposition. If this Bill had been big and bold enough to deal with the location of industry, we should have had hope for the Special Areas. The Minister spoke about the diversified works of man in the last 25 or 30 years. It is true that the wants of man will become more diversified as the standard of live improves but there is no particular reason why the satisfaction of those wants should be confined to factories in the south of England. People have the same wants in the north and in the distressed areas


and instead of the goods being carried from London, the factories should have been established on the North-East Coast and in other Special Areas.
I want to refer to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Clause 5 (2). In one of the areas of my division we have had for a long time a fairly high rate of unemployment, ranging about 24 per cent. Paragraph (a) says:
that there is, and has been for a considerable time, severe unemployment in the area.
There are many areas similar to the one of which I am speaking, namely, Myth, where the unemployment ranges about 24 and 25 per cent. which are not scheduled as Special Areas. What standard is there by which we can measure severe unemployment before we can go to the Minister and state a case? Paragraph (b) deals with the setting up of a site-company, and probably we could meet that condition. The most difficult condition to meet, however, is that in paragraph (c), which says:
that employment in the area is mainly dependent on one or more industries which are unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of general depression in those industries.
What constitutes general depression in those industries? Since we have had the fireless we have become cognisant of depressions. A depression over Iceland has its effects in the Canary Islands. Franco sends out wireless messages about what is going to happen to ships on the high seas if they take food to Bilbao, and it causes depression in the Admiralty, and such a depression in the Cabinet that they have a meeting on a Sunday. We saw a depression last Tuesday on the other side of the House when the Chancellor announced his Defence Contribution proposal. There was a depression on the Stock Exchange, and it does not appear to have lifted yet. We know of depressions of that kind, but when we approach this part of the Bill, we wonder how an area will be able to qualify because of depression.
There is no depression in my area. We are working as hard as we can. The pits are working every day, and for a considerable time they have been working all the days that are permissible under the Act. In the shipbuilding industry they tell me that repair work which would a few years ago have taken over five

months, can now be done in five weeks on account of the improvement that has taken place in mechanisation. In the coal industry in Northumberland we produced, in 1924, 13,500,000 tons of coal, and in 1936 we produced 14,000,000 tons. In 1924, 3,250,000 tons were machine cut, but in 1936 the amount of machine-cut coal was 12,500,000 tons. The underground employes in 1924 numbered 51,121, and in 1936 there were only 34,191. We are working regularly, but new factors have arisen with which this Bill does not attempt to deal, and they will become increasingly more apparent as the days go on. We have not reached the end of mechanisation and science has not said the last word. As competition becomes keener when the armaments spending is over and the markets become limited, industry will again become geared up a little faster and it will produce more per employed person, as we have seen in Northumberland, where coal production has risen from three tons per man to 10 to 15 tons. That is the cause of the distress in my area, and this Bill does nothing to meet the situation. In March, 1936, the unemployment in Blyth was 22 per cent. In spite of all the prosperity and all the activity that has taken place, it was, in March this year, 21.7 per cent. Would that come under the head of prolonged employment, and would that percentage of unemployment be high enough to bring us within the areas which could expect to benefit through the medium of the Commissioner under this Bill?

5.45 P.m

Mr. Cove: This is the first time that I have had the privilege of saying a few words about the distressed areas. I have always had to leave things to those who were more confident to speak upon them than I am, although I have the justification for intervening that my own constituency has been scheduled as a distressed area. Looking at this Bill in relation to the problem which confronts this nation, and particularly the problem facing a constituency like my own, I say that it provides nothing of substantial value. I think that the introduction of this Bill shows that the Government have no cure for this tragic problem, a problem of immense gravity. There is no cure in the Bill itself, there is no tackling of the root causes. Take the case of South Wales. One of the factors which has brought about unemployment


there is the lack of trade. An area which had hitherto been prosperous because it could sell a lot of coal has now become derelict over large areas, and this Bill makes no contribution to that side of the problem. Nothing is done under the Bill to ensure the increased sale of coal; there is no provision by which miners can be kept at work.
Then there is the main cause of the widespread unemployment in South Wales, the process of rationalisation, and for that the Bill provides no remedy, nor even a palliative. One would have thought that somewhere in their programme the Government would have had a measure to alleviate the unemployment caused by rationalisation, but nowhere can one find it. I know that I cannot dilate upon the point, but the Government have said they have made a contribution; but it was that of providing that a child can leave school at the age of 14 if he can find beneficial employment. The Bill makes no attempt to deal with the problem of the surplus of labour. There is no doubt that under the capitalist system, as is recognised by those who support it, you are obliged to have a large reserve of labour which is not wanted temporarily, a hard core of surplus labour. This Bill makes no contribution towards solving that central problem. One would have thought that the Government would have looked at the problem from that angle and said: "At least we can provide increased leisure; we can stop youths going into industry so early in life and provide old age pensions to take older workers out of industry." But the Bill does nothing on those lines. I would remind the Minister of what has already been said many times, but cannot be said too often, that even now, when we are at the height of or approaching the height of an ordinary trade boom, and have the additional stimulus of rearmament to provide work, there are still 1,500,000 people unemployed. The Government are making no contribution to the solution of that problem.
In certain respects this Bill may not only fail to do good to some of the distressed areas but may even do harm. The experience which I have had during the last 12 months in trying to get industry to come into my area indicates

to me that dangers and difficulties may be created by the provisions of this Bill. The Minister is still dominated by the interests of private finance and private companies. The proposals in the Bill do not break the shackles of private finance and private industry in these areas. The Bill is limited to offering inducements to industry. There is the inducement of saying to a site-company, "If you put up factories in these areas we will make some contribution to your rent, or rates, or Income Tax." What inducement will that be, when all the time what those people will be thinking will be, "What is the good of relieving us of Income Tax if we cannot earn profits?"
The provisions of the Bill are dominated by the depression in those areas and there is no way out of the depression through the Bill. The Minister has provided that loans may be given up to the amount of £2,500,000 if an industrial concern will go to those areas, but he does not say what proportion of the capital which is needed may be loaned. Neither I nor any industrial company has any knowledge of the proportion of the capital that it will be necessary for it to put up. I am rather afraid from past experience that the proportion of capital which a company will have to provide will be so high as to prove an effective bar to the company's going there. The Government have not gone far enough in the way of providing money out of the Exchequer to relieve private enterprise of the necessity of looking round for money.
I do not know much about high finance, but from my experience during the last 12 months of trying to get factories started in Port Talbot I feel that what will occur will be this: The finance houses will say, "How much of this money have we got to find? We may have to find two-thirds and the Government may find the remaining one-third, or the Government may find a half." Then they will look round and say, "What are the prospects of making profit?" The prospects of making profit in these areas have been so diminished by the past policy of the Government that they will regard them as very remote, and will say, "What is the use of offering us loans? What is the use of offering us help towards the establishment either of the shell of the factory or of the


factory itself it we cannot see the prospect of making profit out of the products which we make there?"
The real criticism against this Bill is that it provides no escape from the shackles of private profit, and profit will still be the dominant consideration in the minds of private companies in deciding whether they will go to these areas. I have lately been concerned with a proposal to start what I believe is technically called a thermal electric generating station in my area, and latterly I have had a suspicion—I will not put it any higher at the moment—that because there is a shell of a factory in Treforest, and it is a Government trading estate, all those in authority are content with what has been done there. When help and sympathy are sought for projects in other areas I have heard it said, "Oh, we cannot allow anything to develop in Area B or Area C because it might endanger the interests of the Government factory in Treforest." That is happening in South Wales at the moment. There is the fear, based upon certain statements made in certain quarters, that it is useless to try to get anything in any other area while the Government trading estate is in Treforest, though I cannot see that meanwhile there is any rapid development going on at Treforest. The Treforest trading estate is really being made an excuse for not doing anything in other places.
The Minister may seem to doubt what I am saying, and I cannot gives names here, but I can assure him that during the past 12 months I have been associated with certain hon. Members of this House and with people outside in trying to get factories established in Port Talbot, and I find this happening: You get the negotiations up to a certain point, and when you think everything is all right, you have a suspicion that the big electrical companies and the finance houses have a feeling that their interests may be endangered by the establishment of some concern in Port Talbot, and they put an end to the negotiations and you cannot get further forward. Latterly there has been this suggestion—or more than a suggestion—that because there is a trading estate in Treforest we cannot have anything in Port Talbot and in the other places in the area.
There is another thing, in which I may differ from some of the opinions held by my hon. Friends around me. Take my own area as an example, although I do

not mind which area you take as long as it is somewhere in South Wales I am not out to take away an industry from somewhere else; I do not want to take something away from Sunderland to give it to somebody else. Among the excuses which I have heard the following is typical: "Your steel works in Port Talbot are going. You have only 4,000 or 5,000 people employed—I am not giving actual figures—and you have only 10 per cent. or 25 per cent. people insured. You cannot have anything done there." That kind of excuse, and others which I have not mentioned, will probably be used, in the application of this Bill, to prevent anything effective from being done. The Bill is hedged around by checks and counter-checks and advisory committees for this and for the other. Before you can get to the Treasury you have to pass an advisory committee, which will be concerned about the stability and security of the return upon the capital invested, and not merely about the position of the depressed area.
There is no experimental interest being taken in the Bill, and no initiative worth talking about. If anything is to be done inside the present capitalist system the Government ought to take some risk and ought to be prepared to experiment in a much more fearless and—if you like—outrageous manner than they are showing in the Bill. It is a niggling, conservative, piffling little Bill. In my area, and in other areas in South Wales, how many men will be benefited in five years? Will the Minister give us an estimate of what it will mean? I should like him to get up and tell us what he expects the reasonable results of the Bill to be. Will he tell us that within the next five years, out of the 1,000,000 hard core, there are reasonable prospects of 50,000 men being employed? We should feel gratified even at that, but he knows he dare not get up and give an estimate; he dare riot hazard his political reputation on such an estimate. If he gave it he would disclose the meanness and hollowness of the Bill.
The Bill does not meet the problem of the youths. On the one hand these areas are being emptied of their virile population by transfer elsewhere, and on the other industries are being told to go down there, into areas which have been depleted of their consumers. What a policy. I protest. One of the things which fill me with anger is that the policy


of transference is taking youths out of these areas and destroying the Welsh nation; youths are being transferred in tens of thousands to do the menial and unskilled work in other parts of the country. If the policy of transference is to be pursued, why do the Government not see to it that those who are transferred have in their hands skill and technical knowledge which will give them a fair chance in those other areas? The Government are driving out at the present time droves of unskilled labourers into the market. That is no contribution to the problem.
The magnitude and the tragedy of this problem are both evaded by the Bill. It makes hardly a contribution worth speaking of, and the Minister of Labour knows in his heart of hearts that the Bill is only a hush-up; it is only make-believe and an attempt to persuade people that something is being done. But the hard core will remain there. The problem of the distressed areas is an illumination and an experience of what will fall upon greater areas in this country in the not distant future, when the armament programme has come to an end and the trade cycle is going down again. There will be more widespread distress, and if this is to be the only contribution by the Government I am certain that the working class of this country will tolerate them no longer, nor the system under which they live.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: In speaking from this side of the House I can make a fitting reference to the use of the seventh day as a day of rest. The Minister seems to have adapted his rest-day activity by using it in order to admire the works of his own hands and to find that they are very good. I am not sure that other people will go as far as that. There is always the difficulty about a Third Reading Debate which cramps the speakers, in that they are restricted to talking about what is actually in the Bill. Middlesbrough is outside and not inside the Bill, and if I am prevented from talking about Middlesbrough that will be indeed a hardship.
This Third Reading is even more depressing than most Third Readings because of the history of the previous stages of the Bill. Hon. Members like to feel when they get to a Third Reading that

they have played some part in shaping the legislation, but we know that from the beginning the attitude of the Government has been that they did not mean to have a Report stage. They meant to pass the Bill exactly as it came from the Department. The result is that this is not a House of Commons Bill at all but a Departmental Bill, and a rather small one at that. Since the Minister has been so determined that the Bill shall be his own child entirely, he cannot complain if we are not very enthusiastic when he leaves it on our doorstep. I cannot understand why he has chosen to tie his own hands in the Bill and to prevent himself from doing good. References have been made to the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), in Clause 5 (2), and various objections have been taken to the form of each of them. Why not stop at paragraph (a):
that there is, and has been for a considerable time, severe unemployment in the area"?
The paragraphs are only permissive. When an area has, with great sweat and strain, succeeded in qualifying under those paragraphs, it is still not sure of getting a penny or any kind of help whatever. If the Minister had limited himself to paragraph (a) he would still have been left with unlimited discretion to refuse.
Instead of that, he has chosen to put the other paragraphs into the Bill. I have no doubt that he has got it in a locket hanging round his neck, that those three conditions are to be satisfied before he does anything whatever. It appears to be an unnecessary proceeding. I am entitled to refer to Middlesbrough to this extent, that what is in the Bill is not only going to do us no good but may do us positive harm. Perhaps I cannot argue that very far, because it would be pleading to come into the Bill, whereas we are out, but how can anyone deny that there is depression in Middlesbrough? There might be a very great deal of activity going on in a certain industry in a particular town, and although the town might be dependent upon that industry it might not be getting the benefit of the revival. That would not show that there was a general depression, but only a local depression. When conditions in the one main industry have reached their full activity, there might yet be, as is the case in Middlesbrough, 8,000 people left out who, by reason of their training, their health or by reason of the fact of their very long unemployment,


have no reasonable chance of being reabsorbed in that area, even though it must be working well at the time.
Those people are a problem which can be treated either by transference or by the provision of work in light industries. The Minister has admitted that transferring everybody who belongs to a distressed area is the worse of those measures. I thought it was the object of this Bill, of S.A.R.A. and the rest of it, to provide work. If your patients need a prescription which you agree is good in some cases, why not apply it to them? Why should these 8,000 people be left without a panel doctor in this respect? That seems unreasonable. I reflect upon the fact, to which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) very kindly called attention, of the association of Middlesbrough, without any merit of mine but of my predecessor, with the question of the Special Areas. It does not stop there. The Tees-side Development Board, a non-political body, had been most active in suggesting ways of dealing with unemployment in the North-East area. I think I am right in saying that they first proposed the manoeuvre of the trading estate, and now the trading estate has been established, but not in Tees-side. That reminds me of a little tag of Latin which I learned when I was at school and of which I now, fortunately, remember only the first four words, which are:
Sic vos, non vobis.
Its meaning was:
Thus you make honey, but not for yourselves O bees!
I might apply that translation to the present situation thus: Thus you provide trading estates, but not for yourselves O Tees!"
Those who come from Tees-side feel a certain bitterness in looking at these proposals. One does not want to adopt the attitude of a dog in the manger and say that because we are not getting anything we shall not let anyone else do so, but when it comes to the point of work being sucked away from you that you could very well do with, work that you urgently need and have needed for years, it is a very dark and forbidding problem which Members who come from that kind of area have to face in dealing with this Bill.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: I would confirm what my colleague from Middlesbrough has

said about the bitterness associated with some of the things in the Bill, especially when one remembers that a single word of two letters would have made just the difference to us and would have put us on a level with other people in the distressed areas. One feels that a Minister imbued with malice aforethought could not have done worse than the Minister has done on this occasion. His summary to-day was very brief, but I think there are those of us who could have summed it up still more briefly. He was asked by one speaker from these benches to look ahead. I do not think he has looked very far ahead. In fact, as he said himself, he only took a side look at Middlesbrough. As I pointed out the last time I addressed the House on this subject, the first Canmissioner left Middlesbrough out of the distressed areas, for the simple reason that, when he got as far as the north bank of the Tees, he did not have time to cross the water. It takes three minutes on the ferry, but for that reason alone, as he has admitted himself, we do not come into the distressed areas. Is the poverty on the north bank different from the poverty on the south bank? Here you have a most ridiculous situation. The north bank, where they have shipbuilding uninterrupted, is in a distressed area. On the south bank of the Tees we have been deprived, by that iniquitous company called Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, of the possibility of building any ships for 40 years, but still we are not in a distressed area.
For the last four years we have suffered under all the disabilities set out in the three paragraphs of Sub-section (2) of Clause 5. We have suffered from severe depression in our only industry during all these years, but, just because we are temporarily employed as a result of rearmament work, we are not allowed to get the benefit of a claim under this Bill. What a tragic outlook it would be for Middlesbrough if there were to be such a calamity as a successful peace conference. Supposing that we agreed to disarm, the last state of Middlesbrough would be worse than the first. The Minister said to-day that the one aim of this Bill was that districts such as ours should not again put all their eggs in one basket, but we have no other industry except the iron and steel industry, and, as an earlier speaker said, our local development board has spent thousands of pounds and years


of work in trying to make its own magnet, as has been recommended by the Commissioner. All this time and money might just as well have been saved, because we are to have no benefit from this Measure at all if the Minister can avoid it. Anyhow, as he has decided that we are not to have such benefits as he claims, I would like to say a word or two about the Bill as it is going to operate. As to S.A.R.A., I think her life will be brief and barren. The Minister who was in charge on the last occasion is not on the bench at the moment, but I then pointed out that, if an industry requiring assistance can fulfil all the conditions laid down by the Government, it would be able to get that assistance more easily without the aid of S.A.R.A. I was surprised to hear from the Minister that the Team Valley Estate is so far advanced as he claims. I passed it not long since, and saw hardly anything. I hope the Minister is right, but the tragic thing for the distressed areas is that, the more successful the Team Valley Trading Estate is, the worse the conditions of these other districts will become. Are all those industries which will go to the Team Valley Trading Estate industries which otherwise would not have gone to the Special Areas? Will the Minister explain how it is—I hope he will contradict me if it is not the case—that a concern like Imperial Chemical Industries, which is presumably one of the companies that he referred to to-day, and which, as we were told last week, has made such fabulous profits in the past that it will not have to contribute anything towards the National Defence Contribution—will the Minister explain how it is that a concern like that is able to go to the Team Valley Trading Estate? That trading estate was not established at great expense to help concerns of that kind.
There is one point that I would like to put to the Minister, if he is really serious about this matter, if he realises the importance of being earnest. The one objection to the distressed areas is that they are too far away from the London and Midland markets. I went to a little trouble on the previous occasion to suggest to the Minister that that difficulty could easily be remedied if he would cooperate with the Ministry of Transport, but not a word was said about that suggestion. I wonder if whoever is going to

reply could spare a moment or two to pass an opinion upon it. An estimate has been made of the cost of building an entirely new road from Newcastle to London, and it is reckoned that it would cost £15,000,000. Such a road would bring the distressed areas within less than five hours of London if it is built on the right lines—

Mr. Speaker: The Minister would not be in order in dealing with that point; it is quite outside the Bill.

Mr. Edwards: I accept your Ruling, but I cannot help thinking that it would be a powerful magnet to attract industries to those areas if they were brought within five hours of London, instead of 12 or 14 hours as at present. It took us 12 months to get any reply from the Government on the question of the production of oil from coal, but now we are to have an inquiry. I have watched the efforts of two Commissioners, have listened to appeals from the Prime Minister, and have seen all the work that has been done during the time that this Bill was passing through the House, and there does not appear to be any possible solution of this question unless the Government seriously insist on planning the location of industry. There seems to be a weakness or reluctance on the part of the Government to put the least pressure on industrialists in this respect, but surely they will admit that, however much has been attempted under these Bills, very little has been accomplished, and I do not believe that the Minister feels in his heart that anything will be worth while that stops at this point. I hope that, when he is satisfied that the problem cannot be dealt with in this way, he will be prepared to recommend to the Government a definite planning of the location of industry, and insistence upon the distribution of factories. Instead of this miserable method of transferring people to works, will he insist on the works going where the people already are?
I would ask him to consider the disastrous effect from the economic point of view, and to remember what happened at Corby. He will find that, when Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds transferred their works there, they estimated that it would cost something like £3,000,000 to get a plant laid down at Corby and produce a return on their capital; but,


taking into account the cost of the destruction of public works before they could leave their district, and the cost of putting up other public works, houses and so on, for the new factory, the amount on which a return will have to be obtained is probably £9,000,000 rather than £3,000,000, and from the point of view of the community, from the point of view of the nation, it is not an economic proposition. I do not believe that the Minister is going to find that what he is proposing to do under this new scheme is an economic proposition. He will have to tackle the problem in a very much bigger way, and I hope he will give some indication that he is going to endeavour to get the Government to deal seriously with the planning and location of industry.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: As I think the Minister will remember, I did not bitterly oppose the previous Bill. I tried, however, to emphasise that, while there were small pockets of unemployment as severe as any that exists in the Special Areas, the districts where they existed were not included under the last Special Areas Bill, Under that Bill the Commissioners had the power to transfer men out of the Special Areas into other areas which were not scheduled under the Act, but where, nevertheless, there was a high percentage of unemployment. I am not going to decry this Bill as much as some of my hon. Friends here have. There is something in it, but there is not sufficient in it either for them or for myself. If, however, there is an opportunity for those of us who are outside the Special Areas at the present time to get something out of Clause 5, I want it for my people the same as for anyone else who is getting it. Since the passing of the first Special Areas Bill I got my own local authority to take a survey. There is something almost as bad as full-time unemployment, and that is part-time unemployment, intermittent unemployment, as the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) said; and that intermittent or part-time unemployment is so rampant in some districts that, if the employment were given out only to men who could do the job, instead of its being spread over everyone, the unemployment in those areas would be higher than it is in some of the Special Areas.
I had a survey made in my own division to bear out what I want to put across to the Minister, and what I hope he will consider, under Clause 5. In a township with a population of 7,400 the miners over 21 years of age working full time were 65, those working part time were 1,037, and under 21 they were 23, or, out of a total of 1,188 men working at the coal face, there were only 65 on full time. The others were voluntarily sharing the work, and in 1936 and 1937 some were working only two days a fortnight. The Employment Exchange was paying as much money to the part-time men as though they were on full time. If you take underground haulage, there were 19 working full time, 139 over 21 working part time, and 169 under 21 working part time, or out of 351 there were only 27 working full time. The other men were sharing the work, and sharing the starvation, and they were doing it willingly. But, because they were sharing the work, to the Minister of Labour they counted for nothing. I have interviewed him a few times. He says, "George, you have only so many." But, if those men were not sharing it, that "so many" would be something like 45 per cent. totally unemployed in that little township. Middlesbrough is a big township, but, when you work the percentages out, our unemployment is worse than theirs. The matter rests with the Minister. He has to be satisfied:
(a) that there is and has been for a considerable time severe unemployment in the area.
That does not apply to my area. There has not been severe unemployment, but there has been severe under-employment, and if our men had not practised self-sacrifice there would have been severe unemployment. But because the men themselves have been prepared to share the work the Minister says he is not satisfied. Then there is a second condition:
(b) that, unless financial assistance is pro. vided under this section to a site-company which will operate in the area, there will be no immediate likelihood of a substantial increase in employment in the area.
He has to be satisfied. He says, "The mining industry is picking up. You had better wait a bit. If you 'wait and see' for another couple of years, there may be severe unemployment." The Minister not only has to be satisfied on the present but on the future that there


will not be severe unemployment. Although the mining industry is picking up, two men at the coal face are producing what five produced 10 years ago. Before I came into the House I was asked to sign on at g½d per ton, and I came out of the office and shut the door. They can put the coal on to the belt II tons a man. Although production will increase, that does not mean that there will be increased employment. There is a decrease of employment all along the line, and the Minister will be able to say, "You only produced 224,000,000 tons two years ago, and the industry is now producing 250,000,000." Because there is no general depression in the industry we shall be wiped out under paragraph (c). But there will be an opportunity of getting a bit out of the Bill if the Minister will be satisfied with less than he has been satisfied with in the past.
To show the distress in our area, the agenda for an education sub-committee that I should have attended to-night gives the children in the area who are receiving milk free. Out of 3,800 scholars during the last month, 26 were receiving a third of a pint of milk free. There is a scale in the West Riding County Council, and if the parent's income is below a certain figure the children get the milk free. They were getting it free because their parents were unemployed, or under-employed, and the income was less than 30s. a week. A man who lives next door to me had three days' pay to draw at the pit. He had nothing to draw the week before, and he drew his unemployment assistance. When it came to this week he had exceeded his 156 days and had to appear before the committee. He drew three days' wages, which was 24s. 9d., but there were stoppages amounting to 11s. in all. When he went to the Employment Exchange, he thought he had three days to come, or 14s. 6d., but he was told that he only had 4s. 3d. to draw, because he had 28s. of wages, and he had run his 156 days statutory benefit—

Mr. Speaker: This does not seem to have anything to do with this Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: I quite agree. I was trying to link up part-time unemployment as well as full unemployment, and

I hope the Minister will deal with the matter in his reply.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Muff: We are parting with the Bill on the Third Reading and I cannot even support it with faint praises. In the prevailing almost Sunday-school atmosphere that surrounds us, I am not even going to shoot at the pianist. I acknowledge freely that he has stuck to his piano very well indeed, and if he wants to qualify for another non-stop or long-run contest I am prepared to put my money on him, as far as that is concerned. I differ from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in belittling Clause 3. I consider that it is a very important concession for firms to settle in a Special Area when they are going to have concessions not simply on rates but also on taxes, at any rate for a period of five years. That can become such a temptation for financiers and company promoters that they can go to one of these Special Areas, stay there for a period of five years, and by hypothecating accounts, by hidden reserves and other devices known to company promoters, at the end of the five years they may have so feathered their nests that, like the birds, they may migrate and the community may be left with a factory, because somebody has got to pay the rates for these people who come under this preferential treatment, and the community may be left, after having shouldered the burden for five years—and nationally there are the taxes—with the factory. I consider that that is a danger. It is a danger in another respect, because it is giving preferential treatment and actually subsidising an industry in an area, as laid down in Clause 3, at the expense of factories and similar businesses in other areas which may not be called Special Areas but are ordinary or distressed areas. I suggest to the Minister that there is distinctly a danger of taking the bread out of the mouths of persons in other areas by Clause 3 and by some of the other details in the Bill.
One of the things I do not like about the Bill is the competition of conflicting interests of Special Areas, distressed areas and ordinary areas. The policy of the Minister, and especially of the Government is such that in Clause 5 there is a small loophole by which other areas in the country may come in. The Minister is going to have people coming in like so many Lazaruses, displaying their poverty


and their sores, at the gates of the Ministry of Labour to try to get benefits, because under the Bill he is actually penalising other districts and other sections of the community. In my own constituency the Minister of Labour has consistently refused—I hope that at any rate he will take note of this—to give the figures of unemployment and distress. Because it is not called a Special Area, and because its primary industry is, say, the manufacture of cement, the Ministry ordains that cement for the district of Yorkshire and also north of Yorkshire shall come from South Wales, because South Wales is a Special Area. I deplore this conflict of interests between these various communities, and that is another reason why I do not like the Bill. I believe Clause 4 mentions land drainage. In the East Riding there are thousands of acres under water. Clause 4 seemed to give a glimmer of hope that the Minister of Labour would come to the rescue of these places and help with land drainage loans and subsidies to try to recover and reclaim the land; but no, while in the East Riding a penny rate only produces a small sum, it is not a Special Area, and I cannot see where Clause 4 will enable the East Riding or other places to come in. Clause 5, I believe, also mentions the same thing.
In parting with this Bill, I certainly should not go into mourning if it were defeated in another place, which is inconceivable. I suggest this to the Minister. While, as I said, the player, a pianist perhaps, was not altogether bad or without competence to play upon his instrument, I congratulate him on being able to play on this instrument, but his script, I think, was wrong. It is a jangle of discords, and the instrument is also out of date. That is where we, on this side of the House, disagree fundamentally with the Minister and with those who support him. It is the instrument that is wrong, and we ask that this miserable script shall not be used. A soldier described it in rather more graphic terms in one word, which I will not use because, Sir, I do not 'wish to incur your displeasure.
We trust that this Bill is not going to be the last word. We want fundamental changes. We do not want this competition between one community, whether it be in South Wales or in Yorkshire, and another. We want to work together as a whole for the common prosperity of the

whole country. That is one reason why, if there is a Division—I do not know whether or not there will be a Division—I shall have to vote against the right hon. Gentleman, though I am certain that he will be able to survive my voting in the opposite Lobby to himself.

6.52 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: It seems as though the Debate this afternoon has been conducted largely in terms of resignation. We have got this thing; we cannot get anything else; no Amendments are allowed to be moved; and we have got to put up with it. Therefore, I think, at this late hour, we are justified in asking the Minister that at least if his Government will not allow him to do any better—and I cannot believe he is really very proud of them—is he going to put any drive behind what there is in the Bill? It seems to me that it is on that now that the whole thing depends. Anyone reading this Bill, who had not heard our Debates, would assume from the text that it was the manufacturers who were distressed and not the workers; but we realise that towns like Jarrow, which have gone on from year to year, and which have had so much kindness and sympathy and so many nice things said about them, just have not got any work. They have seen these airy castles being built up from the Ministerial Front Bench, and still they have not got any work. Now they have seen this Bill passed. It is all permissive, it is all "may," and "may," and "perhaps," and "if somebody is satisfied." Again the question is, Is there to be any work? There have been so many little schemes started, or going to be started, and there have been so many hints in the newspapers. I do say this about the newspapers on Tyneside. Whatever their politics, they have fought for the people in that area as hard as they can, and they have really tried to put the best face on things, but there is just no work in this particular part. I would ask the Minister, and I hope he will reply, what actual drive to get things done is there going to be?
I was in my constituency when the last visit along Tyneside of the new Commissioners for Special Areas took place. I do not know whether to congratulate the Minister on his choice, but will say that in the two Commissioners he has had, Sir Malcolm Stewart and Sir George


Gillett, he seems to have produced exceptionally truthful gentlemen who certainly have not wrapped up their opinions of their disability. Nobody could have gathered very much hope from the speeches which Sir George Gillett made, and which no doubt the Minister has had before him. Therefore it seems to me, from the statements of Sir George Gillett, that everything is thrown back on the amount of drive that the Minister and his Department are going to put behind him. If he is really anxious that something shall be done, and if he worries people until something is done, then something will be done. That, I admit, is optimistic. But, if the Minister says when this Bill is through the House, "Thank goodness that is over, I can turn to something else," and forgets all about it, then, when the time comes in due course for another resurrection of these eternal Debates, we shall still be in the position that Jarrow is without work, and is still being patted on the back and told how sorry everybody is. I know that the Minister is a busy man. If he cannot do this himself, let him make somebody responsible for getting this Bill working and seeing that something is done and that some of these people have some hope.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. R. Gibson: The hon. Lady will agree with me when I say that what Jarrow is to England, Greenock is to Scotland. I would ask the Minister of Labour when he replies to say what Greenock is entitled to expect from this Bill. The unemployed at the Employment Exchange at Greenock were greater in number at the end of March of this year than they were a year before. This year the total was 6,674, and on 31st March, 1936, they were 6,638, which shows an increase of 36. The ordinary poor in Greenock also show an increase. On 31st March last, the ordinary poor adults numbered 3,198, and their dependants 2,806, giving a total of 6,004. Taking those two figures together, the 6,674 and 6,004, we have 12,678, which does not include the dependants of the unemployed at the Employment Exchange. This is a very large figure out of a population of round about 78,000. Greenock, as I indicated on a former occasion, is the gateway to the Western Islands and the Highlands of Scotland, and the de-population of those areas re-

sults in a progressive influx into Greenock of persons who swell the ranks of the unemployed there.
I have observed on other occasions that the Minister is inclined to hark back to the year 1924 when he is discussing or answering questions dealing with the cost of living; but in these Special Areas, and particularly in Greenock, the distress becomes accumulatively more acute. There is a distinction in principle between poor relief and unemployment benefit.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going outside the scope of this Debate.

Mr. Gibson: I do not wish to extend the scope of the Debate, but I wish to impress hon. Members with the fact that the distress of the people who are distressed in these areas does become more acute. That is a matter of importance in the consideration of this Bill as it leaves this House, and the problem that lies before the Government in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member has been very long in the House. The only thing that can be discussed on the Third Reading is what is actually in the Bill. He must not at this stage make proposals to put something into the Bill which is not already in it.

Mr. Gibson: I am not seeking to make proposals or to extend the ambit of the Bill. I am seeking to impress on the Minister that the problem which this Bill sets out to solve—because this Bill is a delaying Bill, and not a remedial Measure—is becoming more acute, and the longer the delay the more serious the distress becomes. The unemployment benefit or the poor assistance they get is not sufficient for maintenance. I see on the Treasury Bench the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for Scotland. They will call to mind the evidence with regard to Greenock that was led at the inquiry some three years ago showing how acute the distress was as a result of the long continued depression. There is the call on savings to supplement what was given in unemployment relief. There is in addition to that a severe housing problem in Greenock, which results from time to time in a family going to a larger house. That, in itself, may give additional accommodation, but it increases distress in this way, that it diminishes the amount that is available for nourishment, and that reacts again on the ques-


tion of the condition of the people in these distressed areas. In the case of a man who had a single apartment house at a rent of 5s. a week, removal to a larger house involved the rental going up to 8s. 5d., and for that house it was necessary to have an extra bag of coals at 1s.11d., extra light at Is., bus fares for the children at 1s.—

Mr. Speaker: I really do not think that this is suitable for a Third Reading debate. This particular Bill deals only in Clauses 5 and 6 with areas outside the Special Areas. What the hon. Member has said would be more suitable for the Second Reading.

Mr. Lawson: May I point out with deference to your Ruling that the Commissioner himself has continually drawn attention to the fact that this problem is progressively worse because of long-term unemployment? Would not my hon. Friend be within your Ruling if he is dealing with the question of the extra responsibilities which are placed on people in the distressed areas because of the long continued unemployment?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that would be much more suitable on Second Reading than Third.

Mr. Gibson: I shall not develop the matter, but it indicates that a sum of about 10s. is not now available which was previously available for food for the family as a result of the removal to the new house. At this time I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I ask the Minister if in his reply he can give some vestige of hope for Greenock arising out of this Bill. For myself I can find none, and Greenock has had a long spell of distress. We hear from the Treasury Bench from time to time, "What is your alternative?" We have a very clear alternative, which is contained in "Labour's Immediate Programme." We are proud of it. This delaying policy is not the way to tackle the question. The problem presented by these distressed areas is in the nature of a nettle, and I would remind the Minister of the aphorism:—
Tender-handed stroke a nettle,
And it stings you for your pains;
Grasp it like a man of mettle,
And it soft as silk remains.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I want to say a word on Clause 5, which seeks to extend the assist-

ance under certain conditions. Those on the border of being Special Areas will welcome it, because it might be of some assistance if dealt with effectively. Clause 5 says that if—
employment in the area is mainly dependent on one or more industries which are unable to provide sufficient employment by reason of general depression in those industries "—
then certain things can apply. Regard ought to be given to the industries upon which a particular town is dependent. The division I represent is not for the time being a Special Area, or not very near it. But three months ago a colliery closed down and one can visualise that if another colliery follows that one we shall be coming very near to Special Area provisions. If certain industries get caught in a depression what can be done under Clause 5? Surely we ought to have some regard to the position before we arrive there, and not wait until these things happen. If the Minister could under this power do something to help before the climax is reached, it would be far better.
After all, this Bill is intended to try to relieve depression if at all possible after long experience of what is taking place in many areas. I hope that the Minister will follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) and put some drive behind it. We know his abilities; he has the driving power of stating a case very well and forcibly. If we had that drive behind the Commissioner, he would be able to get things moving much more rapidly. If Clause 5 is to be effective it will not have to be allowed to remain high and dry until it is too late to do anything. Although we condemn the Bill as a whole, it remains for the Minister to prove us in the wrong. If he can prove that our fears are based on false premises, it lies within his power to show us, both in the Special Areas and on the border line. He has a great opportunity, for the Bill will pass through the House, and it rests in his hands and those of the Commissioner to do something with it. I hope that my fears will be swept on one side, and that some good will come of the Bill. We do want some good to be done to the people who are feeling the depression through no fault of their own. Industry is in the hands of others, and it is these people who ought to be dealing with industry and making it revive. I hope that the Government will


prove to us that our fears regarding the Bill are groundless.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: May I very briefly express the disappointment of all on this side of the House that the Bill in its final form on Third Reading contains no concession? The Minister has withstood all suggestions from this side, but I cannot believe that he is very proud of this puny Measure, and, while we may admire his stone-walling, I am sure that he will have no great pleasure in taking in his bat at the end of the innings. Indeed, there is satisfaction in no part of the House, the kind of satisfaction which comes from the knowledge of work well done. It is true that this Bill was intended only to continue and amend slightly the principal Act of 1934, to give scant assistance and under almost impossible and unrealisable conditions to help certain other areas. One of the hon. Members for Middlesbrough in pointing out the defects as it affects his town, expressed views on other areas. I have not previously spoken on the Bill, but I view with terrible apprehension the result of the closing down of pits in my constituency. I have never complained before, because I knew that there were areas in the coalfields worse than my own. Now in this seeming time of prosperity I am contemplating a position developing in my own constituency which will render idle and derelict a community of 1,000 families, and I can see no hope for them in this Bill.
It has been the custom in this House to refer to the Special Areas Reconstruction Association in terms of a mythological female personage, but no female person could behave as niggardly as this S.A.R.A. does. She is most difficult to please. She spurns all industrial offers unless they come with proof of financial backing and pledges from wealthy friends. She will take no risk of having to stand surety for a hard-working class which needs help. In the earlier stages of this Bill we have endeavoured to show how much more is really needed. The White Paper professed to give a picture of what is described as a cumulative attack on the Special Areas. It is true that we have seen most elaborate machinery; we have seen few results. It is the most cumbersome, useless mass of machinery that this House has devised for a long time.
It is said that the Special Areas fund has been augmented to assist various forms of activity in those areas. We are also told with eloquent repetition, of the commitments of the fund—commitments here and commitments there, £1,900,000 for trading estates, and other large figures for afforestation and land settlement, and so on—but we have not yet seen the fruits of these large commitments in greater employment in the Special Areas, certainly not in the area in which I reside. I know something about the programme of afforestation. The Minister of Labour, of course, is not responsible for that, but we are now only at the point which we reached in 1931; we are not going forward in this matter. There is no effort at all in the Bill appreciably to reduce the volume of unemployment. There is no great appreciation in the help which is to be given to local authorities. Something much more than is contemplated in the Bill will have to be done for local authorities where there is still a mass of unemployment, which these authorities have sustained for so long and where the loss of earning capacity on the part of the people has been diminished beyond restoration and repair. I repeat that much more assistance must be provided than is contemplated by the Bill.
There is no reference to any schemes for training young men. I put down a question to-day on the matter, but I have had no opportunity of consulting the Minister. I should like to have a definite assurance that in the Special Areas, and particularly in South Wales, a training scheme will be set up which will enable youths to train hand and eye so that they may be able to follow useful and skilful employment. They should be trained to fit them for special employment in any new industries which may come to the Special Areas. It is hoped that these trading estates will bring prosperous employment. We want our young people to be able to take advantage of this employment, and get work at home instead of being transferred. We do not want our youths to be unskilled. We have seen unskilled people come into our industrial areas, large masses of the Irish population in the days of the potato famine. Their children are unskilled labourers, and their grandchildren are unskilled labourers, because they have had no opportunity of escaping from


their conditions. Now it is the turn of our own people to move out from our industrial areas. Are they to be, generation after generation, regarded as outcasts, an inferior class, in the labour market? Are they to lose their self-respect and their skill because they have had no opportunity of training and qualifying themselves for skilled employment? I hope we shall get something definite on this point from the Government.
I am not quite sure that the Government even now see the problem as we do. We see swarms of young men and young women who belong to the industrial areas, who are needed there as consumers if not as producers, who are without employment. The problem of our deteriorating manhood and womanhood must be urgently tackled. Let the provisions of the Bill be expedited as much as possible. Let the Minister put as much drive as he can into the Bill, more drive than hitherto has been given. This is not the last word on this subject, and I hope that the Government will bring in a much more comprehensive and a much more fundamental Bill than the present Measure. We may then thank him, as we cannot do on this occasion.

7.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): We are grateful to hon. Members opposite for the expedition with which they have put their case on the Third Reading of the Bill. The Bill has been so exhaustively discussed in all its stages that the present occasion does not provide much opportunity for a great deal more to be said, and in the very brief time I have to reply, I will do my best to avoid repetition, although that may not be very easy. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street {Mr. Lawson) quite rightly pointed out that the real problem with which we are confronted is a much wider problem, of which the Special Areas are the most acute symptoms. He gave figures showing the reductions in the numbers of men employed, one-fourth in the coal industry, one-fourth in the iron industry, and two-fifths in shipbuilding. He will, of course, be aware that the total number of men employed in the country is very much higher than ever before. While there has been this reduction in these industries since 1924, there has been an increase of 60 per cent. in the manu-

facturing industries as a whole and 8o per cent. in the building industry.
When you have employment declining in certain trades and increasing in other trades, it is inevitable that there should be a certain amount of transference. The hon. Member said he did not disapprove of transference, and for my part I am not very keen on transference, but we must agree that it is a necessary element in dealing with this problem. But the hon. Member was not quite correct in saying that we are entirely relying on transference. Within the last two years, the numbers of men actually in work within the Special Areas has increased by 100,000. The hon. Member asked me particularly whether we would accept responsibility for draining pits in South-West Durham. I have not time to discuss the merits of that subject, and all I can say is that the report to which he refers is now being considered. He knows the arguments of both sides, which are set out in paragraph 186 of the Commissioner's report.
I hope I may be allowed to express the pleasure of the House at the return of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) and to congratulate her on the exceedingly poor markmanship of the insurgent forces. She wanted to know whether the Minister was really going to put any drive behind the Bill. Whatever the faults of my right hon. Friend may be—and hon. Members are always anxious to detect them—I do not think it can be suggested that he lacks drive, and it certainly is his intention to put all the drive possible behind the Bill. The hon. Lady referred to the number of qualifications in the Bill, and said it was largely permissive. The reason for that is that we have to be careful in helping one area not to do injustice to some other areas whose needs may be equally great. That brings me to the point raised by nearly every hon. Member who has spoken. They have all expressed some apprehension that if an advantage is given to industry in one spot, it may prevent it going to a neighbouring spot whose need may be equally great—Tyneside instead of Middlesbrough or Treforest rather than Port Talbot.
Let me make two observations on that point. I suggest that if the attractions in the Bill are powerful enough to draw away industries from Middlesbrough to the Team Valley they may be powerful


enough to draw industries away from Greater London to the Team Valley. If you establish successful trading estates, build up a large number of new industries, which would not otherwise have gone to these areas, at least you are doing positive good in the Team Valley, and it is not demonstrable that you are doing positive harm in Middlesbrough. It might mean that a few industries which are going to the Team' Valley might otherwise have gone to Middlesbrough. But if you have a large centre of industry in a place like the Team Valley it will alter the prospects of the whole surrounding district. If light industries are established successfully in such parts of the country it will benefit the whole area. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffiths) quoted the Latin tag: "Sic vos non vobis." Perhaps I may supply the ending for which he vainly searched: "Mellificatis, apes." But once you establish a hive of bees you may have swarms all over the country.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) insistently challenged me to say how many men were going to be employed as a result of the Bill over the next five years. I think that challenge was fairly safe from the hon. Member's point of view. If I were to prophesy that 100,000 men or 200,000 were going to be employed within the next five years, and as a matter of fact that number were employed, the hon. Member would certainly say that it was not because of the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, I am almost sure he would say that it was in spite of the policy of the Government. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street dealt, as they always do, with great sincerity with the seriousness of the conditions in these areas. I do not think I am likely to disagree with what they said on that point. Since 1931 I have myself represented a Special Area, and although I do not claim to have any special knowledge of the problem, I am not perhaps without some understanding of its gravity. I have always said that it is the domestic problem which claims the greatest amount of Parliamentary attention. But I have always said that there is no quick and easy solution. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have said the same thing—perhaps they have.
If hon. Members think that there is some rapid means of re-employing all the people in these areas, they are entitled to say so and to explain what Parliamentary action they think would achieve this result. To be quite frank, I think we have to choose between a variety of spectacular remedies, which are nearly always inconsistent with each other, and an industrial policy which is willing to learn from the mistakes of the past, but not to excite delusive hopes in the mind of the country.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I wish to make it clear that in placing this Motion on the Paper, we have no desire to hold up work or to prevent the extension of facilities for transporting people on the tubes and railways of this country. In fact, we are concerned about seeing that there should be greater facilities. In Clause 13 of this Bill there is a proposal for the extension of the Morden-Edgware tube to Aldenham. While it may be proved that this extension is required at the present time, I wish to call attention to the conditions prevailing on the tube. If anyone makes a journey on either the Edgware or the Highgate tube, particularly at this time of night, he will have an experience that will not be a happy one. If, in transporting cattle, one attempted to crowd them in the way that people are forced to be crowded in travelling upon this tube, one would be taken before the courts and dealt with. Between Golders Green and Highgate the people are packed together in such a manner that not only is it a danger to life and limb, but a danger to health, and young girls


and men are crowded in such a way that the question of decency even comes up, as is apparent to anyone who has been compelled to make the journey.
That is the condition of things at the present time, but when the line is extended to Aldenham and when there are, in addition to those carried now, numbers of people who will be transported from Aldenham and the neighbourhood beyond Edgware and also people from East Finchley, the situation will be even worse than it is now. There is no provision in the Bill to deal with the difficulties encountered on that tube at the present time. The suggestion of the company is that, with the double line that will come on to the London and North Eastern section, the traffic will be eased by some 25 per cent., but I find it difficult to appreciate how they have arrived at that figure. It rather appears that the people who are expected to make use of what is known as the London and North Eastern, or the old Metropolitan line, are much more likely to add to the difficulties on the tube, which is already overcrowded. If I am asked why that should be, I would point out that the fares on the old Metropolitan line are much higher, and that some of the difficulties to-day are caused by the fact that people living in the parts concerned take the omnibuses from their homes to the Edgware tube in order to travel by it. When there is, in addition, the line from East Finchley, they will certainly make use of it, and the congestion will be more confounded than it is.
No provision is made in the Bill to deal with the traffic that passes through the bottle-neck at Camden Town. I know that the company have stated that they intend to increase the number of trains and coaches, but the utmost they can promise is that there will be an improvement in one case of 40 per cent. How a 40 per cent. increase in accommodation will deal with what is a 100 per cent. difficulty is something which I hope will be explained by the Minister in charge of the Bill. I have been wondering why it is that, when the Bill was being considered upstairs, it was not set out that the Transport Board should deal with the travelling facilities on the portion of the line near London, between Kennington and Golders Green and Kennington and Highgate. The accommodation on that line, which is not adequate for the present traffic, will be rendered more inadequate when additional

people come from the outer district which is to be dealt with if this Bill is passed. It is not only during the peak hours that these difficulties arise. For some reason which it is difficult to understand, during certain hours of the day the trains are shortened, and there is congestion at many hours of the day apart from the peak hours. I have no desire to punish hon. Members by asking them to travel under conditions which are hardly human, but I ask them to make the journey from Golders Green to Hampstead at about half-past eight or nine o'clock in the morning, although I hope they will not take their womenfolk with them on the journey. Yet women and girls who work in the city have to make the journey under conditions that are certainly not a credit to any of those who have charge of that particular line.
I have seen the statement which has been sent to every hon. Member by the London Passenger Transport Board, and I read it in an endeavour to find something that would enable us not to press this Motion, but I could find nothing in the statement that held out any hope that the congestion would be dealt with. They speak of a suitable depot for their trains at Aldenham, but I cannot see how that will help in the matter of the transport difficulty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Extra accommodation."] There will be extra accommodation in the depot, but the people do not travel in the depot; the trains are housed there. I agree that they require extra accommodation for the trains, but what we need is more trains. We require more trains on the lines between London and the stations which are mentioned in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which indicates that we are likely to have the opportunity of travelling in the manner for which we are entitled to ask from the London Passenger Transport Board. In the statement they speak of an endeavour to secure a reduction in fares from the main line companies, but we are asked to wait for some time until the rectification takes place. We are given no assurance that there is likely to be that reduction of fares which might induce people to travel on that line and thus ease the position on the tube. We certainly have a right to demand that the question of the fares, as well as the question of extra accommodation between London and the bottleneck at Camden Town and onwards,


should be settled before they receive the powers for which they are asking in this Bill.
Not only is there the difficulty which I have endeavoured to explain, but it is hoped to extend this tube to outer districts. They speak of the "Green Belt." Those of us who are in London endeavoured to secure the Green Belt not so that it should be a place of shops and bricks and mortar, but a division between the bricks and mortar and the countryside. There is now the proposal to cut across the Green Belt, and that will bring about the very conditions in that part which we endeavoured to get rid of. They speak of the opportunity there would be for greater housing development. If there were more towns in the outer districts and a greater number of passengers to travel on the tube, I cannot see how it would ease the position, although that may be understood by the promoters of this Bill. It would not ease the overcrowding at the present time, which is discreditable and disgraceful. I see that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) and the hon. Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair) are in their places. They know the districts and they know how these districts are developing. The present difficulties will be accentuated by the line going further out without provision being made to give us another tube, which is what is really needed.
The House ought to think not once but many times before adding to the difficulties from which our people have to suffer every day of the week. There is much more that I would like to point out to hon. Members with regard to the difficulties and even dangers which are involved in this overcrowding. I only wish hon. Members could see the conditions for themselves. If they did, I am convinced that they would rise up in revolt against people being subjected to such conditions. I ask the House to vote for this Amendment and unless a clear undertaking is given, without hesitancy and without doubt, by the Board to deal with the problem quickly and get rid of this overcrowding, to refuse them the powers to carry the tube further out and thus make the position even worse than it is for travellers on this line.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for reasons different from those advanced by my hon. Friend the Mover. I hope to get an assurance from the Minister in respect of certain financial considerations which I have to raise, particularly with reference to Clause 5. It provides for the substitution of a trolley omnibus system for the present tramway system. This change is going to cost the boroughs of London a considerable amount of money. I represent the borough of Southwark. The authority in that borough has had inquiries made as to the possible cost to the borough of the alterations outlined in this Bill and on the estimate of the borough engineer the cost to the ratepayers of Southwark will not be less than £37,000. The cost arises in this way. In accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1934, the London Passenger Transport Board is prepared to pay the cost of converting the tramway track to a trolley omnibus system. But the phrasing of the Act only makes it necessary for the board to pay a sum sufficient to ensure the reconstruction of the roads on the standard existing prior to the introduction of the tramway system in London. There is a considerable difference between the standard of road construction which prevailed many years ago and the much higher standard imposed by prevailing conditions, and the difference between what the board is prepared to pay in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and what the borough council will have to pay for the actual reconstruction, is £37,000.
Southwark is one of the boroughs of London which gives harbour to the poorest of the poor. This traffic is not special to the borough. It is traffic passing through from one end of London to the other. The borough acts as a conductor of through traffic and itself derives no advantage from it but, on the contrary, suffers the serious disadvantage of having to pay for the upkeep of the roads. This difference in cost, if the board is not prepared to come to our assistance, will mean in Southwark an additional rate of 6d. in the £. Southwark is only one of the boroughs affected and in other boroughs the cost will be even higher. The circumstances vary to such an extent, from one borough to another, as to make it unfair to impose upon one borough special difficulties with regard to reconstruction, while other boroughs,


where there will be a lower cost because there is a lesser volume of through traffic, will be let off in proportion.
There is also a technical objection to this proposal on the part of some of the advisers of the London boroughs, and it applies especially in Southwark. I am informed that engineering difficulties will make it next to impossible to introduce the overhead system of trolley omnibuses without impeding traffic and limiting transport facilities. I dare say the Minister is acquainted with the Elephant and Castle which is known all over the world and particularly in London as a centre of traffic congestion. If the Minister will visit that junction at the peak hours of either morning or evening he will realise the tremendous problem which faces the board if they are going to substitute at the Elephant and Castle or at St. George's Circus, for the present system, a system which will cause even greater congestion than now exists at those two points. At present, the trams run in the centre of the highway and the omnibuses alongside the kerb. If trolley omnibuses are substituted for trams, it will not be possible to accommodate at the sides of the highway a sufficient number of omnibuses to deal with the passenger traffic which is now enabled to pass through those congested points with the dual system in operation. I am not an expert engineer but I am informed that the situation there is one to which the engineers of the board will have to give serious attention and that the practical difficulties are such that it will be impossible to remedy them, once the trolley omnibus system has been substituted for the existing system.
As the Mover of the Amendment has said, we are not opposing progress, especially progress initiated by the London Passenger Transport Board. We ate merely asking for fair play as between one London borough and another. Seeing that the board derives certain revenue from these roads, I submit that they ought not to take advantage of the letter of the Act of 1933. I hope they are not going to say, "This is the law and we shall compel you to pay this extra cost whether you are poor or not." If the Minister thinks that the London boroughs have a case for financial assistance from the board, I hope consideration will be given to it. I am sure the Minister desires to ensure that no injustice,

financial or otherwise, shall be imposed on anyone. I ask him, therefore, to give me an assurance, at least that the question of financial assistance will be considered. I am not suggesting that he should promise to-night to agree that such financial assistance will be provided. But I hope he will be in a position to say that the question of the cost to some of the poorest districts in London, in respect of an advantage which does not fall to them, will be considered. The people of Southwark do not, to any great extent, use the trams which pass through that borough and yet they are to be called upon to provide a part of the cost for something which brings them no advantage. I hope that we shall have the help of the Minister in this matter.

7.57 P.m.

Sir Reginald Blair: As one whose constituency is very much affected by the proposals of this Bill, I wish to make some remarks upon it. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). He made out a very strong case indeed. It is seldom that I have the privilege of agreeing with the hon. Member when he speaks in this House, but I am heartily in agreement with his remarks about the deplorable conditions of travelling on the Edgware-Morden Line. It is not only at the peak hours—of which I have had personal experience, both morning and evening—that the conditions are bad. Although I do not travel much on that line in the "off-hours," I am told by my constituents in Golders Green that even at those times one can seldom secure a seat owing to the shortness of the trains.
I do not know whether or not the hon. Member for Rochdale is an expert on traffic matters, but I should have liked to have heard the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) on this subject. I certainly am not an expert, and that being so, I have consulted expert opinion on this question. The expert opinion given to me on the subject-matter of Clause 13 is that the proposals will benefit the public, travelling to and from my constituency. Therefore, as I am desperately anxious that something should be done at once to improve the conditions, instead of waiting for five or perhaps 10 years, I support the Bill in the present circumstances. In this con-


nection I should remark that the Hendon Borough Council was, at first, opposed to the Bill and went so far as to lodge a petition against it in another place. I am now informed that only last week they decided by 26 votes to two to withdraw all opposition to the Bill.
I think the hon. Member for Rochdale referred to the wrong railway company. It is the London and North Eastern Railway now—what used to be the old Great Northern line—which is concerned, and I am informed that that line between Edgware and Finchley is to be electrified and, what is more, is to be doubled. That means an additional train service from Edgware, with connections both to the City and to the West End, and it is quite obvious that the people living between those stations now, who take the omnibus or walk to Edgware to get the cheaper fares, will have better facilities. What is more important, if they use that line they will very much ease the present terrible congestion at Edgware Station. A large number of my constituents are very much against the proposed extension of this line, and Edgware people more especially are very conservative in more ways than one, but I feel perfectly convinced that in a very short time they will see a line which is electrified and doubled to Edgware and trains occupying the same time to the City and the West End as the present congested Edgware and Morden line does. Even these conservatives at Edgware, I am sure, will use that line in preference.
Far be it from me to suggest that my constituents are selfish or adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude, but I notice that the local paper, which has taken a leading part in the agitation against this extension, said in a leading article that undoubtedly the electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway and the doubling of the line will prove an immense boon to the people of Finchley. That is undoubtedly the case. I would remind the Edgware residents that Finchley is a very near neighbour of theirs, and look on these schemes as a whole. What is important is to get an undertaking to-night from the Minister that when the London and North Eastern Railway is electrified and doubled fares from Edgware Station to common points served by both routes should be made to correspond on both lines. If the Minister

in his reply to-night will give that undertaking I think it would ease the situation considerably.
The Edgware Tube is to have additional rolling stock, which will mean at least 14 or 15 per cent. more seating capacity than exists at present. But in order to house that rolling stock and the rolling stock of the new London and North Eastern Railway electrified line it is absolutely vital that some depot should be found. Anyone who knows the borough of Hendon as I know it will, I think agree with me that it is impossible to find about 40 acres of fairly even ground in the borough. I know there was one particular area on which the London Passenger Transport Board had their eyes, but the Hendon Borough Council had quite properly earmarked it for an open space, and when approached I am glad to say they refused to sell it. The only place where you could have a depot to house this new stock of the Edgware and Morden line and the rolling stock of the new London and North Eastern Railway electrified line is on the site chosen by this Bill.
I am very disappointed that we have not had an announcement yet as to uniformity of fares between the station at Stanmore on the Metropolitan line and the Edgware line. People at present have to take buses or walk down to Edgware, where the fares are almost half of those on the Metropolitan line from Stanmore. This is a comparatively new line constructed a few years ago and it has very little traffic on it. Here is a simple, easy method of easing the terrible congestion of which I have spoken, and I hope that the Minister to-night will be able to announce that arrangements have been made. I raised this question in the House by a question last week. I was informed that active negotiations were taking place and I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that those negotiations have come to a successful issue.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I want to say a word on this as a resident in the area concerned. I know something of the conditions on the Edgware line and of the overcrowding that takes place there. I travel myself every day on the Stanmore line, to which the hon. Member referred, but I can assure him that it is quite difficult to get a seat on the Stanmore line. I do get


a seat as far as Wembley Park, but there the crowds come in, and more often than not I have to stand. What we have to look at in this is the whole underlying policy of carrying masses of people and not providing proper travelling accommodation. Take this matter of the Aldenham-Elstree extension. You already have large numbers of people brought up to what was once the outer ring of London, and people are attracted there. They are told, "Come and live in the country," and out they go, and when they have been there three or four years they might just as well have stayed in town, because all the world is doing the same thing. People go out, and for a year or two are happy; they actually get a seat in the morning train. Then comes an extension of the line, and by the time the train arrives at their station it is already full up.
There is this kind of absolute lack of planning going on in the whole of this area. You have these two great divisions, Harrow and Hendon, with enormous swollen populations. The people are brought out there and the jerrybuilder is extremely active covering the whole place with small houses—at least they are supposed to be small houses, but they generally seem to me to be garages with living accommodation attached. I call them Marie Stopes houses, because there is no provision for any children. But there are masses of them there. The result is that the whole of that countryside is being torn up. You have very beautiful villages there where you ought to have had a green belt and plenty of playing fields. The village in which I live is a beautiful village, but it is now becoming just like any other place on an arterial road. At Aldenham and Elstree there is a by-pass and you will very soon have the worst kind of ribbon development. There are masses of houses, and what is going to be the effect on people who have already come into the constituency of the hon. Member opposite? They are going to have a top layer put upon them—a top layer of the Aldenham and Elstree people—not the Aldenham and Elstree people who exist now but the new Aldenham and Elstree people. If they are diverted to Stanmore that only means that we shall have a bigger scrap at Stanmore, and in between Stanmore and Wembley Park I have to look out of the window very carefully

because there is a new town springing up every day.
All the time you have these two traffic arteries running out there, and inevitably the further you get the more and more is traffic on them congested. I suggest that we shall never cure this until we get some real planning in outer London, and that in that planning we consider housing, amenities and transport. The development has gone on at a tremendous pace in that part of Middlesex. We have nearly used up Middlesex, and we are coming on to Hertfordshire. The constituency of the Chairman of Ways and Means is there, and it will soon be entirely urban. We now form the outer ring of the biggest target for aircraft in the world, and this agglomeration of London people is being added to all the time. I make this protest both on behalf of the people who are already in this area and on the general ground that we should not continue this reckless development, by putting down masses and masses of houses, followed by partial extensions of railways. We are not adding to the happiness and strength of our people; we are destroying their strength by the hours of torture that they have to spend each week in overcrowded trains.

8.13 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I have had a large number of letters on this subject as being concerned to a certain extent with the preservation of amenities, and all my correspondents are very anxious and worried about the effect that works, especially at Aldenham, will have on the amenities of the countryside. I am bound to bring this to the notice of the House. I do not know whether the Amendment is to be pressed to a Division, but if it is, I shall most certainly vote against the Bill on those grounds. I understand that the point of view of those concerned for amenities was not dealt with before the Committee upstairs, and therefore it is rather difficult at this stage to raise this question as a ground of opposition to the Bill. But there it is, and if there is to be no Division I should just like to make my protest. With what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said I entirely associate myself, and I hope the matter will be dealt with by the Committee in another place. I understand that the County Council and the local bodies are going to oppose the Bill


strenuously before the Committee in another place, and, that being so, I think it is a very good thing to have an expression of opinion before then, showing that at any rate some people in this House are very anxious about amenities, and that the amenity question ought to be very carefully considered.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. George Balfour: I was rather interested in listening to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), and I was interested still further in listening to the Seconder of the Amendment. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) seconded on totally different grounds. The hon. Member for Roch dale is opposing this Bill because of traffic difficulties and lack of facilities on certain lines which closely touch my constituency, but the hon. Gentleman who seconded said not a word about the substance of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman who moved. He dealt entirely with points relating to trolley buses and trams. Quite rightly, he took his Parliamentary opportunity of making further objections to matters which had been heard and disposed of by the Committee after the fullest possible evidence. It is still further interesting to note the hon. Members who have been approached to oppose the Bill. It is rather singular that they have had to go to Rochdale—

Mr. Kelly: I have been living in London for many years.

Mr. Balfour: I am not speaking of the hon. Member's residence. I presume that he is supposed to represent his constituents, and it is rather remarkable that those who oppose the Bill have had to go to Rochdale in order to find someone to move its rejection.

Mr. Kelly: Nobody sought me out to move the rejection of the Bill. I have worked in Hampstead and Golders Green for very many years, and I am one of those who have had to use that tube, and that was enough. I am very glad that people are backing me up.

Mr. Balfour: I compliment the hon. Member on his activity and on his interest in his personal travelling conditions, but London Members have to pay serious attention to the representation of their constituents, and my hon. Friend the

Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair), who sits beside me, has had, I am sure, pressing and urgent representations on this matter, as indeed I have had, and after the fullest possible consideration I was compelled to come to the conclusion that it was vitally necessary in the interests of my constituents—and I know that my hon. Friend also adopted the same attitude in the interests of his constituents —that this Bill should become an Act of Parliament. I would further note that in London we have a peculiar traffic problem. There is no traffic problem in the world which corresponds to that of London.

Mr. Kelly: We know it.

Mr. Balfour: The hon. Member knows the problem, but this is a provisional cure of it, whereas what he proposes is to maintain or increase the evil. We have centred within a radius of not much more than 20 miles one-quarter of the population of the whole of Great Britain, and the people charged with the responsibility of solving this traffic problem have in front of them an almost insoluble problem. Does the hon. Gentleman tell me that he can go to the Ministry of Transport and show them how to solve this problem within any sane limits of common prudence better than they are endeavouring to do it to-day? He can make suggestions and have no responsibility for the enormous technical and commercial difficulties, but can he put before them a solution that they have not already thought of, and considered, and as far as possible put into effect? We are not discussing to-night any profit-earning company. The Transport Board, which is an amalgamation of companies, was detached altogether from the pressure of shareholders and charged specially with seeing that the transport of London was properly conducted, and as far as I know that is a perfectly fair statement of the case.
I have not the slightest interest in the Transport Board of any kind. At one time I was a director of a subsidiary company because I stepped in to take the place of some trustee, but I have not the remotest connection of any kind with the London Transport Board. I understand their difficulties, however, and I believe that they are discharging an amazingly difficult task in a very able manner. They have made these proposals, and I have


gone into them as far as I have been able. I think that the fact of this line being built will not solve your overcrowding and that you will still have overcrowding in the centre. As I say, that is an insoluble problem, and you will inevitably find peak-hour overcrowding in this centre of 11,000,000 people. But let us study the question from this point of view: Is this proposal to serve the people beyond the centre a reasonable one? Are the Transport Board paying attention to representations with a view to relieving congestion or giving additional facilities? It is my belief that they have discharged their duties admirably and that any hon. Member who votes against the Bill will be retarding and not advancing the very object that he has in view.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Green: Like the last speaker, I feel sure that every Member of this House fully appreciates the difficulty which confronts any body or individual who attempts to deal with the vast problem of London's traffic, but because we feel that the Transport Board are not doing all that they might do to remedy some of the serious grievances from which many boroughs in London suffer, we feel justified in taking this opportunity of voicing the feelings which exist in our own boroughs. Unlike the Mover of the Amendment, I speak not only as a London man, but as a London Member, and my borough council have been very concerned indeed with what has been happening with regard to the traffic problem as it most intimately touches them. I share with other hon. Members who have spoken their desire not to do anything which would in any way hamper, restrict, or hold back the advance that the Transport Board desire to make in their arrangements for London's traffic. We realise the seriousness of holding up, even for a short time, a Bill containing the provisions that this Bill contains, and we have no desire whatever to do that.
Were it in order—and I am afraid it is not—I could complain very bitterly of some of the things that are not in the Bill. I remember as a representative of Deptford many years ago heading a deputation from the South London boroughs to Lord Ashfield and Mr. Pick to advance the idea of the extension of the Tube from the Elephant and Castle to the South London boroughs, through

Camberwell, Deptford, and Lewisham. But we regret that they have not seen their way to do it yet, and there is no mention of it in this Bill, so obviously we are not entitled to discuss it. This Bill, however, is one that is vitally important to every borough in London, and I think the House is not wasting time in discussing some of these problems. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) has spoken—and we all of us will feel it pretty severely—in regard to the rating problem and the expense which the poorer boroughs in particular will incur as a result of the introduction of trolley omnibuses. I understand that the increase in our rate in Deptford will be even greater, as a result of this, than will that of South-East Southwark, so that some of us will feel it vitally in that way.
When I placed my name to the Amendment on the Paper I felt keenly that the protestations of the borough council of which I am and have been a member for about 28 years had not received the regard that they should have received, but since the Order Paper was printed I have had an opportunity of consulting with the Transport Board, and they have made certain suggestions, as a result of which I should not feel justified in opposing the Bill in the Lobby. My only hope is that to-night the Minister of Transport may be able to give us some assurance, because I gather from the Transport Board that it now rests with him. I understand that the Ministry laid a scheme before the Transport Board to improve the travelling facilities between New Cross, Brockley, and Forest Hill, and that the scheme now awaits the sanction of the Minister of Transport, so I hope he may be able to give us some assurance to-night.
Unlike some of the speakers to-night, I am not asking for better accommodation. I am not even asking for standing room, because we at New Cross are not even allowed that opportunity. The tram and bus service there for years has been so appalling that it is no infrequent thing—and I speak from personal knowledge, because unfortunately on certain evenings of the week I have to travel from the "Marquis" at New Cross to go to Brockley, when the House is not sitting —to see from 100 to 150 people waiting for a Brockley tram or bus. One


occasionally comes along sandwiched between others going to other destinations. Half-a-dozen people manage to get on and the remainder are left standing. I have more than once had the buttons torn off my coat in the unholy scrambles that take place between 5·30 and 6.30 to board a tram or a bus. I appreciate the difficulties with which the Transport Board is placed, but I suggest that in that area we are getting more than our fair share of them. We say that the difficulties should be equalised a little more. My borough council has been in negotiation with the board for years and we get promises, but nothing materialises.
It will be admitted by my constituents that the services to-day are immeasurably and demonstrably worse than they were in the days when the London County Council and the City Omnibus Company ran services. The first duty of the Transport Board is to study the convenience of the travelling public. My view is that that is a last consideration of the board. We have heard—and the instances can be justified and multiplied —that a number of young people resident in my borough have lost their jobs through being late in the mornings. An excuse like "the tram did not arrive in time" may go down occasionally with an employer, but it cannot be made too often. There are many instances in Deptford of young people having lost their jobs through being late because of their inability to get trams or buses in time. It is no uncommon thing to find young people who have been in the habit of coming home to their midday meals, who are no longer able to do it because they cannot depend on getting a regular service. These things ought to be taken into consideration, and I trust that the Minister will use such influence as he has with the Transport Board seriously to consider this new scheme to remove some of the grievances which I understand have been placed before him, and to see that a really adequate service, allowing for the difficulties, is given to the borough that I represent.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The hon. Member and the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) stated that the rates in their respective boroughs would be substantially increased if this Bill became an Act. Some of us are in a difficulty about that statement, and would

like to know in what way the rates will be increased.

Mr. Green: At present the tramway undertaking pays rates to the local authorities and the upkeep of the roads now partly falls on the tramway undertaking. Both of those contributions will cease when trolley buses are running. There is further, I understand, the question of the reinstatement of the roads consequent on the disuse of the conduit system.

8.30 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: Hon. Gentlemen need not apologise for putting their Amendment on the Paper. This is a Bill of 95 Clauses and it is a proper compliment to it and to its promoters that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity of thoroughly examining it. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) said that the problem was insoluble. Surely that is a counsel of despair. We as London Members have a responsibility to bring pressure to bear on the responsible authority to see that some solution is found of what is, after all, a difficult problem, but, in our view, not an insoluble problem if there is a will and co-operation between Parliament and the Transport Board.

Mr. Balfour: All I meant was that the population of London is so large that you will never solve the overcrowding problem at the rush hours.

Sir P. Harris: The suffering early morning and in the evening of the travelling public who have to use the tubes, buses and trams, who have to strap-hang day after day, makes it a problem so urgent that the House of Commons has a special responsibility to discuss a Bill of this character. That applies more to this Bill than to any other kind of traffic Bill from any other part of the country. In Birmingham, for instance, the local authority is responsible. The City Corporation manages its trams and buses, but the only real chance for the great London public to have their grievances ventilated is on the Floor of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Hampstead, whose electors are great sufferers from the congestion on the Tube, says there is not any real remedy because the population is so large that some congestion is inevitable. In many American cities they have got over


the difficulty by having a double line of track. That is the solution, and it is no use the board coming time after time with these Bills unless they recognise that as an urgent necessity.
All the central London tubes, if they are to be extended, must have their tracks doubled. Some of them in America have a third track, which is used as a relief in the early morning and evening rush hours. The inconvenience and discomfort are so serious that we cannot be satisfied, to be told that no remedy is possible. There is another side of the question which makes it even more pressing. We are endeavouring to persuade the population in the centre of London, the East End and South London, in districts like Southwark, Bermondsey and Bethnal Green, to go further out. The answer we get, however, is that they cannot go any further out because of the expense—which I do not think is insurmountable—and because of the congestion and overcrowding in the trams, tubes and buses and the inevitable delays and difficulties in the way of people being able to get to work punctually. There is another remedy, in which the Ministry of Transport must be interested, and that is the improvement of the roads.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): We are not on the Second Reading. We are discussing now what is in the Bill.

Sir P. Harris: I quite agree. I realised that I was sailing a little too near the wind, but I hope that we shall have another opportunity to take a wider survey of the problem, because we cannot isolate the responsibilities of the London Passenger Transport Board from the larger question of the general improvement and replanning of this great new London which is growing up so rapidly. The reason why we have to force people underground is that the present road system is not good enough to carry the vehicles above ground. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport that if he is to get this Bill —and I think he will get it—the Ministry ought to persuade the board to be conscious of the grave and growing discontent of the travelling public. The Londoner is probably the most patient person in the world. He puts up with discomfort better than, probably, anybody in any city in the world, but we should not take advantage of him for that

reason. This House and the board ought to show more imagination and more ingenuity in tackling the problem. During the last week or two there have been some serious incidents, and I have even heard of a stay-in strike by a section of the travelling public on one of the tubes. Such things have a way of spreading, and we do not want to see such happenings in London.
I say to the board that if they are to get support for their Bills in this House they must show that they realise that they have a responsibility to meet the requirement of the regular travelling public who go to work every morning and return every evening. There is a growing idea among some people that the management of some part of the services think that the public exist for the tubes and the trams and not the trams and the tubes for the public, that it is quite good enough to give the public a strap to hang from every morning and to extort a fare in return. One day the strap-hangers may rise in their wrath, and, as an hon. Member behind me says, may hang the persons responsible from their own straps. But I think we had better let this Bill go through, because it is a small contribution, though an insufficient one, towards solving the traffic problem. I am unfortunately encouraging the people in the district I represent to go to live in garden suburbs, but if I am to be successful there must be some substantial improvement in the travelling facilities provided by this great monopoly, the London Passenger Transport Board.

8.39 P.m.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), in commenting on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), stigmatised his remarks on one point as being a policy of despair. I can sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green, because I have frequently heard him advocate a policy of despair on many other subjects which come before us. I only wish to intervene for a few minutes as a member of the Select Committee which considered, very carefully and exhaustively considered, this Bill in Committee. Some Members may ask why I, as a Scottish Member, should have been placed on that Select Committee, and the answer is that it was in order


that the Committee might bring an unprejudiced and impartial mind to the consideration of these very vital problems, very vital in view of the very carefully considered speeches which have been made this evening.
The main attack has been directed against Clause 32. We had one speech directed exclusively against Clause 5, and I will say a word or two about that before I sit down. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has moved that the Bill be considered this day six months, simply and solely because he and those associated with him object to this one Clause in the Bill, Clause 32. My observations have led me to the conclusion that he is a good Parliamentarian, and I would respectfully suggest to him that it would have been much wiser for him to have objected to the Bill on Second Reading, or moved that it be an instruction to the Committee upstairs to leave out Clause 32, rather than seek to jettison the whole of this very valuable Measure, which is what his Amendment would do if it were pressed to a Division and carried, as I hope it will not be.
There is another course which was open to him. It is open to him on the Report stage to move the deletion of what seems to him and those associated with him to be a most obnoxious Clause. And there was still one other course he could have taken, and that was to allow this Measure to proceed without a division now, and, in another place, to move that it be an instruction to the Committee to delete the Clause or to amend it. We must all sympathise with those Members in all quarters of the House who have deplored the traffic conditions and the congestion on tube railways, especially the tube railway which we are specially discussing to-night. When we were subjecting this Bill to the exhaustive examination in Committee to which I have alluded no appearances were made on petition against this Clause. There were three petitions lodged in the first instance, by the County Council of Hertfordshire, the County Council of Middlesex and the Harrow Urban District Council, and I am led to the conclusion that the members of those local government bodies were satisfied that this Bill in its entirety, in particular this Clause, would be beneficial to the inhabitants of their

areas, because they decided to put in no appearance before the Committee.

Mr. Kelly: I am not to blame for that.

Mr. McKie: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he is not to blame. Am I to deduce from his interjection that he knows better than all the members of all those three local government bodies?

Mr. Kelly: Judging by my Amendment to-night. I am sorry to have to be so immodest.

Mr. McKie: I quite understand that the hon. Member has suffered inconvenience, and perhaps he thinks the members of those local government bodies are reactionary and are not fit to be entrusted with the control of those areas.

Sir J. Withers: As I understand it, those local bodies are opposing the Bill in another place.

Mr. McKie: I was going to say a word about that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal first with the remarks of the Mover of the Amendment.

Sir R. Blair: I think the hon. Member means Clause 13 of the Bill, although he has been referring to Clause 32.

Mr. McKie: I must apologise to the House; I should have said Clause 13, the unlucky number. I suppose the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) believes he knows more about this matter than the local bodies; he is not reactionary, but they are. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) said that all these objections could be lodged in another place; that would be a perfectly legitimate procedure, for I understood from his speech that the objections being taken on petition in another place will be solely with regard to amenities.

Sir J. Withers: Not altogether. I do not know whether the county council are limiting their grievances and whether amenities form part of the objection.

Mr. McKie: So far as I understood the hon. Gentleman, objection was to be principally on the ground of amenities. In this Bill we are not primarily concerned with amenities; the whole line of attack has been on the ground of congestion and of improper facilities being afforded to the travelling public, of North


London particularly. The Debate has swept a far wider field than that and has dealt with the problems of the travelling public of London. All speakers supporting the Bill have stressed the importance of the London Passenger Transport Board's realising the position, and doing all that is humanly possible to deal with what the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) called an insoluble problem. I thought that his use of the word "insoluble" was a little too strong. I am sure that he would agree that, as time goes on, although the problem to be faced in consequence of the increase of population will be always more formidable, the London Passenger Transport Board, and those associated with the board, will be in a position to deal more adequately with this most serious problem.

Mr. C. Balfour: I thought I used the phrase "this almost insoluble problem." I woud ask whether it has ever been the lot of the hon. Gentleman to deal with this traffic problem. It has been mine, and I am sure he would use the same words if he had had that experience.

Mr. McKie: I admit the hon. Gentleman's use of the adverb "almost," in speaking on this problem. I have not had my hon. Friend's long experience in North London and elsewhere in dealing with traffic problems at first hand. I am intervening in this Debate only as a member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill. I say again that this question was never raised in the Committee, and further that no appearance was put in in regard to the petitions which were entered. I sympathise with the remarks that have been made by all parties in this House that the London Passenger Transport Board should realise what is imposed upon them with regard to this almost insoluble problem. Although I was a member of the judicial tribunal in connection with this Bill, I think I have a right to do that. I do not wish to be controversial, but as I listened to the Debate on the unlucky Clause 13 and on Clause 5, the thought was in my mind that, when legislation of this kind is proposed, the interests directly affected so often represent that nothing is being done. I think that any impartial listener to the Debate would agree with me that the London Passenger Transport Board are trying by this Bill to do something which is very greatly

needed by the travelling public in North London. I do not think that anybody has as yet alluded to the fact that it is proposed to double the London and North Eastern Railway's existing line from Finchley to Edgware.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Yes.

Mr. McKie: I did not think anybody had done so. That improvement is to be made in the very near future or as soon as is humanly possible, and will of necessity increase the number of passengers travelling on that line, and will relieve the tube railway, which has been a bone of contention, perhaps up to 25 or 30 per cent. It may be objected that that percentage is not very much, but it is something. The hon. Member for Rochdale very strongly objects to the extension of 2¾ miles of the existing tube railway, but he does not realise that it is vitally necessary to provide increased accommodation for people who are travelling daily in the tube railway, and that in future the London and North Eastern Railway line will have been doubled to Edgware in order to provide accommodation for 550 new cars—I speak from memory but I think the figures are correct—of the most up-to-date type, and giving an increased seating capacity of about 14 persons each. I wish the hon. Gentleman could realise that a very great deal is being done in the Bill to relieve congestion. I wish he would take a different view of the matter and realise that this is an attempt to do something, and not a measure of an extremely reactionary kind warranting the sort of picture which he was guilty—shall I say —of presenting to the House.
I should like to refer also to the speech of the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), who objects to Clause 5, which proposes to substitute in certain areas systems of trolley-buses in lieu of the existing tramway services. This proposal gave the Select Committee which considered the Bill occasion for very serious reflection. The points made by the hon. Member were discussed at considerable length by the promoting and opposing counsel, and the Committee had the benefit of hearing the most expert witnesses on the matter, as the minutes of the proceedings will show. With regard to the substitution of trolley-buses for tramway vehicles on the Thames Embankment, which is within


the jurisdiction of the Westminster City Council, I can say for the benefit of the hon. Member that the Committee came to their decision only after very long, careful and protracted discussion. The chairman, in announcing the decision, uttered a strong note of warning, saying that the Committee had only come to their decision with very great reluctance. In other words, we thought it was a very grave step to take, having regard to previous legislation, to allow a trolley-bus system to operate within the precincts of the Mother of Parliaments, near to Westminster Abbey, and in such an ancient city as Westminster. With regard to the suggestion that there will be increased congestion if trolley-buses are substituted for trams, I hope the hon. Member will realise that trolley-buses are much more flexible than tramway cars, and, so far from congestion being increased, I should very much hope that it would be relieved. I am satisfied, and I am sure that those associated with me on the Committee were satisfied, that the formidable problem of increased congestion which the hon. Member envisages is not a reality, and with that remark I should like to leave the matter.
I desire to join with others who have expressed the hope that those who have been responsible for putting on the Order Paper this Amendment, that the Bill be considered upon this day six months, will not press the matter to a Division. In particular, I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale will realise that a time like this, when the London Passenger Transport Board are faced with many problems, and will have to make within the next few days many grave decisions, is not a time for making their onerous tasks more difficult in any way. I trust that the House will realise that the Second Reading was the time for bringing forward objections to Clause 13 and Clause 5, when it would have been possible to move Instructions to the Committee to delete or amend those Clauses upstairs; and that, if they defeat the Bill now they will not merely be defeating Clauses 5 and 13, but will be defeating a most valuable and beneficial Measure brought forward for the benefit of the travelling public of London as a whole.
Accordingly, I venture to suggest that the House will be taking the wiser course if it realises that, that opportunity having

been allowed to go by, the proper thing to do is to leave these matters to be dealt with by Amendment in another place. We must all recognise that this question is no bone of contention among parties, and I hope most sincerely that it will never become one. I am horrified to think that the great railway companies are raising fares at the present time. I hope that cheaper fares will become a reality for the dwellers in what were described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) as Marie Stopes houses; and certainly, being satisfied that the Bill is a most beneficial Bill, I shall support the Motion before the House.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I found it difficult to understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) should have put down this Amendment, but, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), who was a member of the Committee, I am not sure that he is altogether wrong. I came here to-night with the full determination of supporting the Bill and opposing strenuously the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but the hon. Member for Galloway has nearly converted me to the other point of view. He has handed out, during his long speech, an enormous amount of information which he appears to have collected in the Committee and which he thinks has made him a traffic expert.

Mr. McKie: Nothing is further from my mind than to try to pose as a traffic expert, and I would ask the hon. Member to produce one sentence of my speech which supports that suggestion.

Mr. Morrison: I was going to suggest that it would have been rather a good idea if the Committee at some stage had broken off their deliberations and if the hon. Member had had a few weeks' experience of travelling conditions in certain London areas such as some of us have had.

Mr. McKie: That remark would apply to the deliberations of any Select Committee, or to any legislation that is brought forward in this House.

Mr. Morrison: I think that perhaps, if I am to get on with my remarks, I had better leave the hon. Member alone. I am sorry that the hon. Member for


Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) has gone, because, in regard to his reference to the problem as being almost insoluble, I wanted to draw his attention to one important change that I have noticed during the past 10 or 12 years. In many districts of North London, up till 10 or 12 years ago, the sight could be seen at the rush hour every night of crowded trams, buses and tubes taking back people packed like sardines to the outskirts of London, and coming back empty. In many of those districts to-day, while you will still see the same crowding when people are being taken out, you see a change in that the trams, buses and tubes are crowded on the return journey also, owing to the fact that so many factories have sprung up on the outskirts, the employés of which are living nearer to London, so that there is a double instead of only a single load. The principal point that I want to make is that, with all the hardships referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and others, the hardships and grievances of Golders Green are nevertheless, in my judgment, comparatively insignificant as compared with those of other parts of London.
I was brought up in a school which believes in first things first. Anyone who believes in that doctrine as far as traffic problems are concerned and has to spend some time in trying to get eastwards, or northwards for that matter, during the rush hours, ought to have some experience of the conditions which the Parliamentary Secretary and I have to put up with on the antiquated London and North Eastern Railway line from Liverpool Street to Enfield—probably the greatest traffic scandal in the world. I do not think the hon. Member for Galloway was correct in assuming, if he did assume, that the London Passenger Transport Board can solve this problem of fares.

Mr. McKie: I never said so.

Mr. Morrison: I thought I should be wrong, but I gathered that he was under the impression that the fares on the Stan-more route were a matter for the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. McKie: The question of fares never came before the Committee, because Clause 13 was never discussed, for the reason I have already given, that no appearance was made on the petition. I

was only led to mention the subject of fares because of the speeches of Members who preceded me in the Debate.

Mr. Morrison: I was only going to point out that, if my interpretation of the Bill is right, fares in the Stanmore direction are a matter for the London and North Eastern Railway Company and not for the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. McKie: I omitted to state that the control of the section from Finchley to Edgware on the line operated by the London and North Eastern Railway Company will be under the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. Morrison: In spite of the speech of the hon. Member who was a Member of the Committee, I must carry out my original intention of voting for the Bill. I want the scheme to go through as quickly as possible. I know of no alternative. A promise has been made that the line in which I am interested, from Liverpool Street to Enfield, is the next that will be dealt with. I have an enormous number of resolutions, including one from the North Hackney Conservative Association, demanding electrification at the earliest moment. Another reason is that I am a little doubtful whether this Debate will serve any particularly useful purpose, apart from the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Galloway. I made a suggestion the last time I took part in a Debate on a London Passenger Transport Bill which I should like to repeat, because I think the time has come when it should be carried a little further. I said:
Inevitably when Private Bills, especially transport Bills, come before the House, Members desire to voice grievances arising in their districts. I think that is unfortunate, I think it is a misuse of Parliament. Almost every grievance raised on these occasions is extraneous to the Bill under discussion and I suggest to the consideration of the Minister, and particularly to the board, that between now and the promotion of the next Bill they should see whether some simple machinery could not be devised whereby Members of Parliament representing divisions in the board's area should have an opportunity of coming more closely in touch with the representatives of the board, to have questions of omnibus services and things of that kind settled without being thrashed out on the Floor of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1936; col. 1522, Vol. 309.]
As a result, I hope, of that suggestion a considerable improvement has taken place, and I think many Members


are much more satisfied with having been brought into closer touch with officials of the board than with the old-fashioned system of continually raising these matters on the Floor of the House. I want to suggest now that the board ought to get more closely into touch with local authorities. Every local authority in London is continually writing to the board and receiving letters in reply. I throw out the suggestion that, if officials on the board were to extend the scheme that they have commenced in regard to Members of Parliament and get into personal contact with local authorities in order to discuss these questions, it would be better than having Debates in the House.
I am a little perturbed at the statement of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that things are so bad that there was a sit-down strike of passengers. There was a stay-in strike in the House of Commons on Thursday when Members stayed all night, but I am not sure that anyone accomplished anything. There is no wonder that the public find a difficulty in understanding the House of Commons sometimes when we sat for a day and all night last week and now we are spending the evening in discussing the grievances of Golders Green. I think if it is possible for the board to devise machinery which will make these discussions unnecessary, it will be to the advantage of everyone concerned.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: If the Amendment is taken to a Division, I do not think I shall be able to support it, though I agree that the hon. Member was justified in bringing the matter forward and I agree with a great deal that has been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). The remarks that I wish to make deal solely with amenities. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) said that some of these points had not been raised by petition when the matter was before the Committee. Of course, it is an expensive matter to petition against these Bills, and the people concerned with amenities are not generally very rich, nor generally would they have any locus under the rules of procedure. I do not suppose that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England would have had any right

to appear by counsel before the Committee. The Clauses to which I wish to refer, not with any idea of defeating the Bill, but in the hope that it may be considered carefully in Committee in another place, are Clauses 6 and 13. Clause 6 deals with provision for turning trolley vehicles. Sub-section (3) embodies certain views of the Committee which considered the Bill and says:
This section shall not extend to enable the board to make any provision for the turning of trolley vehicles on "—
and it gives three selected places where no turning shall be permitted. I understand that the London Passenger Transport Board, if Clause 6 remains as it is, propose to seek permission for turning trolley vehicles in certain streets in Chelsea which, I am quite confident, would have been refused by the Committee if they had had any idea that such were the intentions of the board. I suggest seriously, in the hope that this may receive the attention of those who sit in the Committee in another place, that they should ascertain from the London Passenger Transport Board what are the places which they are trying to secure for turning trolley-buses, in order to ensure that important amenities in Chelsea and elsewhere are not endangered.
Let me now turn to Clause 13, the subject of the main discussion to-night, which deals with the extension to the Aldenham Reservoir. That will tap a piece of country which, though near London, is still in part unspoilt. At a time when we are rightly eager to protect, where it is not too late, such stretches of countryside as are near and accessible to London, it is a very serious thing indeed to extend a railway if we believe that the inevitable effect of such extension is that the new station will be quickly surrounded by the sort of building that was described, I thought much too mildly, by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not often complain that the right hon. Gentleman is too mild, but on this particular subject I could go much further than he did. I looked into the case for the London Passenger Transport Board, which has been placed in the hands of every hon. Member, to see how they justified this extension from Edgware to Aldenham, and I gathered that Aldenham is the only place where they can find sufficient accommodation for their new rolling stock. I am inclined to say, "Tell


that to the Marines." But suppose it to be true, and that it is right that they should be allowed to extend this railway to Aldenham, and to have a depot there and accommodation for their rolling stock, that is no ground for opening a passenger station there. If this extension is allowed at all, it should be very carefully considered whether any station on that site should be permitted. It may be argued, if you are going to have a building of the London Passenger Transport Board there, are you not going to spoil the place anyway? As to that, I do not know. It so happens that in the deplorable horror of the architecture springing up around London, almost the only decent architecture is provided by the London Passenger Transport Board. It has had the sense to employ an excellent architect, and it has given us some very fine buildings. On the whole the architecture of the London Passenger Transport Board, and indeed their stations, are good. I admire the board for many things, for their encouragement of good architecture, and design, and so forth; but I am quite certain that if this bit of hitherto unspoiled countryside is opened up by the board, the building provided by the board will be the only decent and reputable building which will be placed there.
I often pass out of London, and I have done it in many directions. Not long ago I went through one of the northern suburbs, not one of the poorer but one of the better ones, and you could see the buildings that were going up in this recently opened district. You were offered three alternatives: you could have "a cosy palace," you could have "a bijou baronial hall," and lastly, you could have "a Tudor garage." The one thing you could not have, for love or money, was a decent house. As long as this plague of mock Tudor continues and this worship of the false and bogus which is springing up in every new district opened up, ruining our countryside, without providing the amenities of a civilised community, so long ought we to hesitate before we allow this station to be opened in a hitherto unspoiled country district. I believe that the sort of thing that has been permitted around London and our great cities in the last 20 years is more scandalous than anything in our history, and more foolish and more short-sighted. Since the War, I am told, we have added to London a

city of the size of Manchester, and I am sorry to say it is equally beastly. I do not wish to go further to-night than to draw attention to these two Clauses: Clause 6, under which certain amenities in London may be threatened; and Clause 13, under which unspoiled country will be ruined. I hope that what has been said by some speakers on amenities here to-night may be noted in another place, and the dangers of this Bill avoided.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Messer: It is not my purpose to detain the House very long, but the Bill is very interesting to me, for two reasons. The first is that two of the routes, route No. 10 and route No. 19, will affect my division. They will affect the division of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Transport more than they will mine. Route No. 10, will be a service of trolley-buses going from Amhurst Park as it joins Seven Sisters Road and thence towards Highgate. What I am concerned about is an efficient transport service to that particular part of London and Middlesex. In my division, we have the difficulty of congestion which arises from a dog track and a first-class ice skating rink to the south; the famous Arsenal football Club to the north, and in my colleague's division there is what once was the finest football team in the country, the Hotspurs. These centres of attraction draw large numbers of people into my division, and through my division to the centres to which I have referred. I am reminded too, that north of that there is Alexandra Palace.
Trolley-buses are already in existence and going through part of my division as a result of the last Bill of the London Passenger Transport Board. I am not opposing this Bill, because I think it is a step in the right direction, and I know that the limits of Parliamentary procedure would not permit me at this juncture to suggest how it could be improved. I want to point out, however, that the trolley-buses, coming as they do —and it will be understood by those who know the geography—along the main road and branching off at another main road, will in some respects mean an accentuation of congestion, the reason being that they will attract a travelling public which at the moment does not use that way. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, may hold out


some hope of improved organisational transport in that district. Route 19 travels from Finsbury Park and Manor House down Green Lanes into the City. The point known as the Manor House is the base of a triangle and, where the transport facilities have been improved north of Finsbury Park by the extension of the tube railway going to West Enfield, there has been no improvement of transport north-east of Finsbury Park going from Edmonton and Ponder's End. As Manor House is one point of a triangle—

Sir Robert Tasker: Apex.

Mr. Messer: That is a point surely. Travelling along one side of Seven Sisters Road, travelling along another side of the triangle, Green Lanes, two roads gradually converge for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1¼ miles. Between these roads there is a junction road, St. Ann's Road, and anybody wanting to get from west to east or from east to west, from Harringay and Tottenham, has either to walk the length of St. Ann's Road, or go to Manor House, change there and get on another vehicle going east. In other words, there is no direct communication from the north of my division into the east part of London. If, for instance, I wanted to call on the Parliamentary Secretary I would need to walk from my house for 10 minutes, then get on to a car, because Parliamentary salaries do not allow of taxis, change and get on to another vehicle, and finally, after spending three times the amount of time that the distance justifies, probably arrive at the hon. Gentleman's house and find him out.

Mr. Ede: Then you would be lucky.

Mr. Messer: Not if the object of my visit was to get him to do something. Therefore, I do not propose to oppose the Bill, but the whole transport facilities ought to be considered in the light of a re-planning. They are being done piecemeal, whereas there should be a complete examination of the whole problem and, if that examination is to be effective, it must be in conjunction with the people who know the difficulties of the locality which they represent and in which they have some responsibility for administration. It was said by the hon. Member

for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that the petitioning authorities had withdrawn their opposition. He said that the Middlesex County Council had withdrawn their opposition. He said, "Is it assumed that the members of these authorities are reactionary?" No, and neither must it be assumed that the whole of the members of these authorities were consulted with regard to their opposition. Notwithstanding that, no one seriously wants to prevent this Bill going through, because it is some slight improvement.

9.3o p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In his valuable speech the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) said that those who have to consider the problems of London traffic were faced with an almost insoluble problem. Surely that is proof, if proof were needed, of the urgent necessity of which my hon. Friends on this side have often spoken for drastic measures of reform with regard to town and country planning and, particularly with regard to London, it is proof that we need drastic control of a more effective kind than we have ever had. Many of the most important things that have been said to-night were on the broader considerations brought forward by the hon. Member for Hampstead, considerations which, you, Sir, very rightly ruled out of order. Since they are ruled out of order, I want to confine myself to the point mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) in Clause 13, the extension of the line to the Elstree-Watford by-pass junction. I venture to submit to the House that the dropping of this extension would not imperil the rest of the £13,000,000 scheme which the London Passenger Transport Board put forward. On the contrary, the rest of the scheme could be carried through. The only effect of dropping this part is to remove what is certain to become a cause of additional congestion in an early future. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) assured us that this extension is only required for the construction of a depot which is vitally necessary to house the 550 new cars to be put on the line. and that the board did not intend to create a new centre of population. On this extension the board propose to spend the money required to build 2½miles of new line, to fill in a lake, to erect a station


and, since there is to be no population, to build shops.
I think the hon. Member for Norwich went to the root of the matter when he asked, Why is it necessary to have a passenger station if you want only to build a depot for cars? It is plain that these new works could not be paid for unless the board had a centre of population, and it is plain that if this scheme goes through as it stands it will mean along the Watford by-pass ribbon development of the absolutely atrocious kind, which you can see on too many miles of that road already, destroying the value of that road as a by-pass and an artery for fast traffic. It will mean the creation of a new dormitory suburb. It will mean the destruction of a track of really beautiful country near London and easily accessible to a great part of the London population. It is right in the middle of country which must be included in a green belt if you are to have a green belt. It is about 13 to 14 miles from Marble Arch and it is in a county which so far has not made a great contribution to the green belt. Essex has provided 9,000 acres; Middlesex and Buckinghamshire about 5,000 each; and Hertfordshire, where this new extension is to be made, this new centre of population to be established, has so far contributed only 2,500 acres. It is proposed to destroy a piece of admirable country which cannot be replaced.
This area includes a sanctuary for birds, the only one I know in the vicinity of London. It also includes two beautiful pieces of water to which many people go in winter and summer, and above all it includes facilities for exercise in the open air. The green belt is now not only necessary for the preservation of the countryside but is needed for exercising in the open air. I have the honour to be a member of the National Advisory Council which is considering the physical training and betterment of the health of the nation. We are considering action of many kinds, but so far our discussions have convinced me that there is nothing so important, nothing so helpful, as increasing the opportunities for our young men and women to walk and bicycle in the countryside. Here in this area there are something like 50 miles of paths which the owners very generously allow to be used by walkers and hikers, and the

value of these will be destroyed if this becomes another built-up area.
It may be said that this is not going to happen. I believe it is absolutely certain to happen. Already land values in this area have risen enormously since the plans of the London Passenger Transport Board were first divulged, and a rise in land values is always the surest sign of the jerrybuilder's wrath to come. All this is to be risked for the sake of a depot. Is there any other possible site for this depot? I do not profess to know, but I would ask the Minister to deal with this question particularly in his reply, because I hope he will agree to support an Amendment in another place which will deal with this most important aspect of the matter. According to the information I have received there are other sites available. I have a letter written to "The Times" by the headmaster of Aldenham School, a well-known and responsible man of high standing, who says that just outside Edgware itself there is on the line of the proposed extension, but one and three-quarter miles nearer London, an area double the acreage which is required for the depot, and level throughout, where in fact, the depot could be placed at much less cost than it will be now at Elstree. That information may be wrong, but I hope the Minister will give us some information on the point.
I hope and pray, whatever may be the truth about the possibility of finding other sites for this depot, that some other alternative will be found to the destruction of this bit of the countryside. I am satisfied that if the scheme goes through we shall be allowing another example of the indiscriminate growth of London which has been such a disgrace to our generation. It is a serious example of such growth, and I hope measures will be taken to see that it does not occur.

9.39 P.m.

Mr. Petherick: I do not propose to keep the House for more than a few moments. I have taken a rather impish delight in watching the division of opinion which exists. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), a strong right-wing Tory, made a powerful plea for this great Socialistic enterprise, while hon. Members opposite have voiced their grave objections to it. I wish to raise a purely constituency point. Lest any hon. Member should think that the activities of the London Passenger Trans-


port Board have extended to Penryn and Falmouth let me say that I am speaking now on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Saint Pancras (Sir G. Mitcheson), whose constituents are affected by the Bill. My hon. Friend is under doctor's orders and unable to be present, and when he mentioned the matter to me I went and had a look at the various streets which will be affected. Let me explain my problem by a relation to the geography of the House generally. The passage from another place to the Central Lobby is the Hampstead Road, and it crosses Euston Road at the gangway on the other side of the Bar, that is at right angles, and then crosses into the Tottenham Court Road where the central gangway is at present.
At the present time buses come down the Hampstead Road and stop at the junction with the Euston Road, going back on another line. The trolley-buses will take over that route and the suggestion which has been the subject of inquiry is that instead of stopping where the trams do now they shall continue down the Tottenham Court Road, that is down the central gangway, until they get to a point represented by Mr. Speaker's Chair, then turn right up Howland Street, turn right again up Fitzroy Street and come down at right angles into Marylebone Street and join the Tottenham Court Road again. There are three right-angle turns until they get once more into Tottenham Court Road. At that point the Tottenham Court Road is rather narrow. You can get about four lines of traffic, and when I was there, not at a busy time, the congestion was considerable. If these trolley-buses carry on down Tottenham Court Road in order to turn it will entail an extra 6o buses per hour in addition to the existing heavy traffic. My hon. Friend's constituents suggest a different route. They suggest that it is quite unnecessary to go further into the Tottenham Court Road and only necessary for the trolley-buses to go as far as the trams do now and then turn left into the Euston Road, that is on the other side of the Gangway, and turn left again up George Street into the Hampstead Road. That would be two left-handed turns, that is turns with the traffic, and it is a fairly broad road and actually a better suggestion than the one in the Bill.

Mr. Messer: I want to make sure of the hon. Member's geography. Do I understand that trolley-buses will come along the Hampstead Road, turn down into Euston Road and then go along Gower Street into the Hampstead Road again?

Mr. Petherick: I understand the suggestion is to go down the Hampstead Road, turn left along the Euston Road for a short distance and then take another left-handed turn into the Hampstead Road again. It entails only two turns. It seems to me that this alternative suggestion is very much better than the one which may be adopted as the result of the inquiry. It would mean that this additional traffic would not get into the narrow Tottenham Court Road, and you would have left-handed turns instead of right-handed and avoid a good deal of congestion. The inquiry was held on the l0th, 11th and 12th of November last, and at that time it was thought by my hon. Friend's constituents that the Borough of St. Pancras was going to make serious objection to the proposal. There had been an investigation by their borough engineer who apparently had pointed to the fact that a great many expensive alterations would be necessary for the route proposed by the London Passenger Transport Board.
It was thought that the borough would prosecute their objections by means of employing counsel, calling evidence, and doing everything that a local authority properly can do to make their objections felt. But they did not do so. For some reason or another, all that they did was to send the chairman of their highways committee to appear before the board and to read out a minute, I think—although I am open to correction on that point—objecting in general to the scheme which was to be passed. The result of that was that the inquiry reported in favour of the scheme for the route to go round Howland Street and Fitzroy Street in preference to the alternative route. Having examined the route on the spot, I think that the scheme adopted is the worse of the two schemes. After all, the local authority is in a position to state very much more forcibly and with more authority the views of the people in general in its area than are private people. Consequently the private people did not "make much of a show," if I may use the vernacular, and the St. Pancras


Borough Council appear not to have proceeded seriously with its objections.
The present situation is that the case is in the hands of the Minister. I hope that before he adopts the scheme put forward as a result of the inquiry, he will look very carefully into the matter again and compare that scheme with the scheme put forward by many of the local residents. If he can see his way to adopt the latter or to order a fresh inquiry to be held, I hope he will do so.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) presses this Amendment to a Division, I shall vote for it, because I am sure that until the House does something dramatic, such as throw out a Bill of this magnitude, we shall not have the problem of what Cobbett called over 100 years ago the "Great Wen" properly dealt with in this House. In debate after debate hon. Members have deplored the extent to which London is spreading itself over the countryside in a great unwieldy, unorganised mass. We are promised a Royal Commission to deal with the question of the location of industry, which is one of the things bound up in this matter, but we have not heard of the Royal Commission's terms of reference or of its membership.
I have seen what has happened in South London on account of this very process. I recollect that in 1924, when this tube was extended to Morden, I was one of those who went on one of the first trains, by invitation of the board. We got out into what was then a delightful piece of countryside, with an old village inn quite close. It was closed at the time we arrived, but we noted it as a place of call as we came back. We then proceeded to spread ourselves over a piece of country which, without being very hilly, was none the less quite pleasant. About two months later the Surrey County Council considered an application from the local urban council to buy some of that land for use as a playing field, and the members who went to see it reported that there were less houses there than there were in 1821. Now, from that place right to Epsom, there is a solid mass of houses. There is now no open country until one gets through Epsom to Epsom Common, and even the small isolated enclosure in Epsom Common where the ancient wells were situated has

now been covered with these small houses. Precisely the same thing will happen in the North of London, at Aldenham reservoir and these other places, if this extension is allowed.
Twice during the present Session the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) has brought this kind of matter before the House. Everybody agrees with the hon. Member for Maidstone, and that is the chief source of danger to his ideas. There is no fight left. But while we are congratulating ourselves that we are all in favour of preserving amenities, the speculative builder goes on with his work. I deplore the condition of affairs that will arise in the neighbourhood of the extension of this line if it is allowed. It is of no use the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) proclaiming his jeremiad and asking another place to save us. The place in which to save the area in the North of London is here, to-night. If this Bill went to another place, I should be very sorry to trust the amenities of Hertfordshire to anything that might happen in a place where the chairman of the London Passenger Transport Board sits.
Therefore, I hope that if my hon. Friend cannot get from the Minister an assurance that quite definitely the Government are determined to deal with this problem of the planning of Greater London and its transport facilities, he will press his Amendment to a Division, and I sincerely trust that the House will realise, as it did the other night on a similar matter with regard to Scotland, that until it throws out a Measure this matter will not be seriously tackled. If the Measure were thrown out, the Government would then believe that those of us who so willingly back the hon. Member for Maidstone in his endeavours to get these subjects dealt with are really in earnest, and would produce a Measure that would enable some bounds to be set to the growth of Greater London.
I suggest that it is entirely wrong to place upon all these young people who are not doing very skilled work the hardship of having to travel into London, standing in these trains day after day, to perform on the expensive floor space at the centre of this great city routine operations that could be done a great deal more healthily and better nearer their homes. The Government ought, in considering this traffic problem, to study


the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Garden Cities and Satellite Towns, on which I had the honour to sit. One authority with which I am connected —the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Undertaking—has deliberately taken all its routine work away from its offices in Westminster and put part of it at Surbiton and part at Dorking, so that the young people may travel against the main stream of traffic as they go to their work and do that work in more healthy surroundings nearer their homes. All these questions are involved in the principles behind this Bill. I trust that the Government will give some assurance to-night which will enable us to feel that they really understand the seriousness of the situation and will enable my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment to a Division. If he feels that he must press it to a Division, I shall vote with him.

9.54 P.m.

Mr. Charleton: This is the first time that I have addressed the House in this Parliament, but I am very interested in this Bill and in the men who work on the tube railways. On their behalf, I would like the House to pass the Bill. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggested that the London Passenger Transport Board should use some ingenuity, and the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) spoke of replanning. May I remind the House that the London Passenger Transport Board have done a good deal of replanning. For many years it was my job to take part in the negotiations on behalf of the staff. Hon. Members will recollect that when the tube railways were first laid down, they were not laid down with any particular object of taking people anywhere; but that short stretches of tube were laid down here and there. Anybody who has watched the growth of the London tube system will have seen the wonderful work the London Passenger Transport Board have done. Millions of money have been spent on improving the system, and bringing it to the points which can most usefully be served, but the lamentable fact is that the population is always overtaking that work.
I know what takes place on the Edgware-Morden and Stanmore lines. I live about a mile to the west of Edgware Station close to the Metropolitan and I

know from my friends and neighbours that if the fares on the Stanmore line were reduced and made comparable to those on the Edgware line, many hundreds would travel by the Stanmore line instead of by the Edgware line. Similarly, people living at Queensbury take the omnibus to Burnt Oak and join the Edgware line there. I have been in communication with the board on this question. The Bakerloo tube is being extended to join the Metropolitan line at Finchley Road and run through to Stanmore. I raised the question of the fares with the board. It was pointed out to me that the fares on the Metropolitan line were not quite under their control, but I was informed that negotiations were going on and that they felt confident that by the time the Bakerloo line to Stanmore was finished, the fares on the Stanmore line and on the Edgware line would be comparable. To throw out the Bill would be a disaster. The overcrowding would continue and no good purpose would be served. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested the board might get a big shock.

Mr. Ede: I want the Government to get the shock.

Mr. Charleton: Even so it would be delaying the extension of these railways, and that extension would be a help. I am afraid that it would be difficult to prevent people going out to live in these districts. In fact I do not want to prevent them from going there. I was very glad to go there myself a couple of years ago, and friends of mine are going there, and if people do not go to live in these districts, then we shall have to house them in sky-scrapers in London. I am concerned also with the people who are working on the railways. Some sympathy has been expressed with them on the way in which they have to work as a result of this congestion. I can assure the House that they feel it very much and they feel sure that if this Bill is passed, their lot will be made happier than it is now, and matters will be easier for all concerned in the working of the tube railways.

10.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): We have had an interesting


Debate, which has ranged over a wide field, and perhaps it would be well, before I proceed to deal in as much detail as possible with the points which have been raised, to inform the House at the outset of the exact position, in connection with this matter, of my right hon. Friend the Minister. There seems to be a great deal of misconception about it. He is only able to transmit representations to the board, for whose policy and management he is not responsible. Parliament deliberately withheld from him any power to take action. If hon. Members will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 6th December, 1932, col. 1483, Vol. 272, they will see that the Minister had powers under the London Passenger Transport Bill, as originally drafted, to take action as regards facilities, while the Railway Rates Tribunal had powers as regards fares. But during the Committee stage, in order to meet objections made by this House to the effect that the Bill conferred excessive powers on the Minister, an Amendment was made by which it was laid down that applications as to both facilities and fares could be made to the Railway Rates Tribunal by a local authority. That removed from the Minister any power to take action himself. I want the House to realise that. When I am asked to do certain things I can assure hon. Members that I will use all my most persuasive methods to do those things, but it is not fair to blame the Minister for not having used powers which the House has not thought fit to grant him.
This Debate has, for the most part, dealt with the subject under two main heads. The first is the overcrowding on the Edgware-Morden line, which overcrowding, it is alleged, will be made worse by extending the line to Aldenham. There has also been a complaint as to the comparative fares on the Stanmore line and the Edgware line, which it is stated drives, people to overcrowd the Edgware line instead of using the more expensive line from Stanmore. First, on the question of overcrowding, the board have set out their plans very fully both in the printed statements sent to every hon. Member and also in letters to the Press. Certain hon. Members have said that the Aldenham extension is primarily for the provision of a new depot for rolling stock, and I am informed by the board that the extra passengers who will

use the extension will consist largely, of people who at present use the station at Edgware and who now travel by the same tube. They now come down by other means to Edgware. That, however, does not get over the question of building.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the case that Edgware Station is only one mile distant from the houses which are furthest out on that road, whereas the proposed new station will be more than two miles distant?

Captain Hudson: The point which I am making is that if there is no extra building there, the people who at present get in at Edgware will get in further out.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is precisely the point I am making. If there is no extra building, the houses which now exist are at least twice as near to Edgware Station as they are to the site of the proposed new station. The last house is only one mile from Edgware Station but two miles from the site of the proposed station.

Captain Hudson: The hon. Member is saying that what I have been informed of by the board is not a good point to argue. I merely make the representation. I want to make it clear that this is not the Ministry's Bill but the board's Bill. That point I will take up with the board. Then there is the scheme to link the London and North Eastern Railway and the Highgate branch. That scheme does not come under this Bill, as powers were granted in a previous Measure, but it also provides for the doubling and electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway, which will provide a useful alternative route between Camden Town and Edgware. I want to survey what the board are doing to show that they are making very big efforts to deal with the most difficult subject of overcrowding.
Another point that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down dealt with is the scheme to link the Bakerloo Tube with Stanmore. That will undoubtedly relieve pressure on that part of London where so many of the tubes end within a comparatively short distance of each other. There is to be provided new and improved rolling stock, which I am assured will bring about a 14 per cent. increase in seating accommodation. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who moved the Amendment, made the point, and rightly, that the worst congestion is


not north of Camden Town, but chiefly to the south. This question of the Alden-ham extension and even the scheme to link the London and North Eastern Railway and the Highgate branch will not deal with this part of the problem, but the proposed link between Stanmore and the Bakerloo Tube will help materially in that respect, and so will the improved rolling stock which is to be provided. That will deal with the very vital problem of which my hon. Friend has told the House.
As an earnest of the intentions of the board I am informed—and this is very interesting—that since 8th April the board has already managed to provide in the morning period from Edgware alone five more trains to the West End and five more trains to the City; and in the evening period to Edgware two more trains from the West End and 15 more trains from the City. That does not solve the problem, but anyhow it does show that they are endeavouring to do something. The board hope—and I trust that their hope will be justified—that when all their plans are complete it will mean something like a 40 per cent. increase in accommodation. That is a considerable amount when we consider what a difficult problem it is with which they have to deal.
I should like to turn now to the difficult question of the disparity of fares at Stan-more and at Edgware, about which I answered a question asked on Thursday by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair), who has written to me also on this subject. The disparity is very great. If you are going on the Stanmore line from Queensbury to Charing Cross you will pay 1s. 2d.; if you are going on the other hand on the Edgware line from Edgware to Charing Cross you will pay only 7d. Therefore, I am not pretending that the disparity is not very great. It comes about because Edgware was an integral part of the Underground system, and Stanmore of the Metropolitan, which followed the main line companies. I agree that every effort should be made towards greater uniformity, and I am assured—and that assurance has been supported by the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charlton) who preceded me—that the board are in active consultation on the matter with the main line companies. I agree that this question is a vital one in dealing with the subject of

congestion, but again I want to stress that the Minister cannot himself do anything. Parliament has laid down certain machinery, and if the local authorities are dissatisfied it is still open to them to make an application to the Railway Rates Tribunal, and that form of appeal, if I may call it so, has been set up by Parliament to deal with exactly this kind of case. Therefore if they feel dissatisfied—and hon. Members in all parts of the House have said that is so—machinery has been devised, and I hope that the local authority will use that machinery before they come to the Minister and say that nothing can be done.
I hope before concluding to deal with one or two other matters which have been raised. First of all the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) and the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. W. H. Green) raised the question of the cost to the local authorities of the change-over from tramways to trolley vehicles, chiefly owing to the fact that the lines have to be taken up and the road restored to its original condition. The Transport Board act under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, Section 23, Sub-section (4). Under that Section, upon the abandonment of tramways, the board have to make good the surface of the road to as good a condition as that in which it was before the tramway equipment was laid and erected. The Minister has no further powers in this matter. I do not think he can do more except to see that the board carry out their obligations, which were placed upon them by this House so short a time ago.
I could not very well deal now with all the questions of rating which have been raised. That is a very much bigger question. All I can say is that if the local authorities feel aggrieved when this big change has been made and the whole of the tramways have disappeared and trolley vehicles take their place, they will always be able to discuss the matter with the appropriate authority, and if that appropriate authority is the Ministry of Transport we shall be only too glad to do what we can to meet their difficulty. The right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) made very useful and very thoughtful speeches, but they dealt mostly with the big problem of the enormous growth of building round London and the necessity of adequate planning. All that


I can say is that I agree with a great deal of what they have said. I am assured that the board do not want to stop any possibilities of the green belt being extended in the direction of Elstree and Aldenham, but at the same time, if, as I understand, the Bill is to be opposed and petitions are to be lodged against it in another place, I have no doubt that that aspect will be considered by the Committee. On the Report stage in this House, as we are now, I cannot say more than that. I think it was a pity, if local authorities and others felt strongly about this question of the extension to Alden-ham, that there was no opposition on the Committee and, therefore, it could not be examined in detail.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) made only one point which caused me some concern, and that was when he seemed to think that we should follow the admirable example of America as regards tubes. I have always had the tube railway of New York during the rush hours held up to me as being the most intensified form of hell that ever has been. They are so crowded there that they have men—I only saw it some 10 years ago, and it was bad enough then—to throw the passengers in on top of each other, to crush them in, and to shut the doors, in a way which would never be tolerated here.

Mr. Kelly: They do it here.

Captain Hudson: I think we do it much more kindly here. At any rate, I do not think that in New York they have managed to solve this problem. It is true that they have four tracks, two express and two local, but at the same time, owing to the nature of New York skyscrapers and so forth, their problems at the rush hours, or, as I believe they call them, the commuting hours, are even worse than ours round about Camden Town and places of that kind.

Sir P. Harris: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that, because in America they have double tracks, therefore in London we should avoid them? That is what his argument comes to.

Captain Hudson: I was saying that, if we take New York's example, double tracks do not prevent overcrowding.

Mr. Noel-Baker: But the population per square mile in New York is, owing to the geographical restriction of the Island of

Manhattan, far greater than anything here.

Captain Hudson: I agree, but the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green said, I gathered, that they had solved that problem in America, and I wanted to point out that they were very far from having done that. The hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. C. Morrison) made a suggestion that the board should get into closer touch with local authorities. It was his suggestion, and he repeated it in his speech, that we should try to organise some machinery by which Members could bring their local grievances more readily to the board. I think that that machinery, which has now been organised, has been a success, and I shall certainly pass on this suggestion of his to see whether again it will not be equally successful in dealing with these purely local matters.
The hon. Member for Tottenham, South (Mr. Messer) dealt with the general question of traffic organisation in the north of London, in both his constituency and mine and the neighbourhood round about. I can only tell him that I cannot now deal in detail with the matters that he raised, but I will take them up with the board and see whether we cannot have some improvement made. Personally, I think that when the trams are replaced by trolley vehicles, we shall see an improvement. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) said he considered that at the Elephant and Castle and places like that the congestion would be worse. From some experience of going up to Hackney through those crowded streets, I can say that one of the difficulties is that if you get your trams in the middle stopped and your omnibuses at the side stopped, you get a complete jam from the fact that the trams cannot draw in at the side. I believe, myself, that owing to the greater mobility of trolley omnibuses many of our congestion problems in the north and centre of London may be considerably abated.
There was a local matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) with regard to a turning point in Tottenham Court Road. I can only tell him that a public inquiry was held and that a number of suggestions have been made at various times. The original turning point suggested by the board was turned down


chiefly because it would have been a great embarrassment to one of our great hospitals, and finally, after the public inquiry, a certain route was selected. When that was done the St. Pancras Borough Council resolved not to pursue their objections. The Metropolitan Police did not object, and finally my right hon. Friend signified his acceptance of the plan, which cannot now be altered. We went into this very carefully at the time, and I think we have chosen the best route we could in difficult circumstances. Everyone must realise the difficulty in these matters in meeting everybody's objections. We have done the best we can, and what I want to impress on my hon. Friends is that, the decision having been taken, it is not now possible to alter it.
My right hon. Friend is strictly limited in the power which he possesses. Machinery has been provided by Parliament to deal with grievances, and I would impress on the House that it is for the aggrieved persons to decide when and how they will use that machinery. I hope that hon. Members will not consider it necessary to oppose the whole Bill because they object to certain Clauses in it. They will have drawn the attention of the board to the real anxiety which is felt on some of these matters. I want again to draw the attention of the House to the fact that no objectors took the opportunity of opposing the extension in the Committee, and that there is a further opportunity in another place for them to do so if they desire. This Bill contains much that is useful for the betterment of the London Transport system, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not find it necessary to divide against it.

Mr. Bossom: May I ask whether it is the case that the board will have the right totally to ignore the question of town planning and the preservation of amenities in the extensions?

Captain Hudson: This point can be dealt with by the Committee in another place as it could have beep before.

Mr. Kelly: Since when did a railway come under a town planning scheme? Railways are outside it.

Captain Hudson: The question I was asked was whether the board would totally ignore the question of planning?

Mr. Kelly: They do now.

Captain Hudson: I am answering without notice, but my view is that, if these extensions had been opposed in Committee the whole question would have been considered, because I understand that the board offered to give its reasons for doing certain things, but the Committee said that, as there was no objection, there was no reason why they should do so. I think that in these circumstances one can safely assume that in another place, when this Bill is considered, all relevant facts will be brought under review.

10.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: When a railway Bill is before the House there is generally an hon. Member who is a railway director who answers for the company. There is no one who can answer for the board. The Minister cannot do so and no member of the board can be a Member of the House. I suggest, therefore, that there should be some alternative and that a Member of the House should be appointed to answer for the board in the same way as a Member answers for the Ecclesiastical Commission. At present the position is not entirely satisfactory.

Question put, "That the word now ' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 55.

Division No. 162.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J
Boulton, W. W.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Critchley, A.


Ammon, C. G.
Bracken, B.
Crooke, J. S.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Brocklebank, G. E. R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Apsley, Lord
Bromfield, W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Drewe, C.


Assheton, R.
Gary, R. A.
Eckersley, P. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Elmley, Viscount


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Emery, J. F.


Barr, J.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.
Colman, N. C. D.
Errington, E.


Blair, Sir R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)




Fleming, E. L.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Remer, J. R.


Foot, D. M.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Riley, B.


Furness, S. N.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Ritson, J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lathan, G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leach, W.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Gluckstein, L. H.
Lookie, J. A.
Rowlands, G.


Goldie, N. B.
Lee, F.
Rowson, G.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Liddall, W. S.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Logan, D. G.
Salt, E. W.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGhee, H. G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Magnay, T.
Simpson, F. B.


Grenfell, D. R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Markham, S. F.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mathers, G.
Spens, W. P.


Guy, J. C. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Messer, F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Harbord, A.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wakefield, W. W.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Muff, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heneage, Lleut.-Colonel A. P.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Holdsworth, H.
Owen, Major G.
Wells, S. R.


Holmes, J. S.
Paling, W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hopkinson, A.
Peat, D. U.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Petherlck, M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.



Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Crossley.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)





NOES.


Adamson, W. M.
Garro Jones, G. M.
potts, J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Gibbins, J.
pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
salter, Dr. A. (Bormondsey


Balniel, Lord
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Sexton, T. M.


Baley, J.
Hannah, I. C.
shepperson, sir E. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
smith, E. (stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Strickland, Oaptain W. F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
White, H. Graham


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gallacher, W.
Parker, J.



Gardner, B. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Mr. Naylor and Mr. Kelly.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

PROCEDURE RELATING TO MONEY RESOLUTIONS.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the working of the Standing Orders relating to public money and, subject to the unimpaired maintenance of the principles embodied in Standing Orders Nos. 63 to 66 (both inclusive), to report as to whether any or what changes are desirable in Standing Orders No. 68 and No. 69 or in the procedure relating to Money Resolutions.

Committee nominated of Sir Francis Acland, Sir Irving Albery, Captain Beaumont, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Captain Cazalet, Sir Cyril Entwistle, Mr. Lambert, Major Milner, Mr. Lees-Smith, Mr.

Stephen, Mr. Charles Williams, and Earl Winterton.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Five be the quorum."—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.